Instant writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 9-10-2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Khanpur whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 19-4-2000 passed by Judge, Family Court, Khanpur.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff-respondent was married to the defendant-petitioner about four years prior to the institution of the suit on 18-10-1999. As the relations between the parties became strained, she filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against him. The said suit was resisted by the defendant-petitioner wherein he raised one preliminary objection regarding cause of action and also controverted the contentions of the plaintiff-respondent on merits.
3. Alongwith this suit the defendant-petitioner also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was also resisted by the plaintiff respondent. Both the suits were tried by one and the same Court and were decided through a consolidated judgment, dated 19-4-2000 whereby the suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed and the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the defendant-petitioner was decreed. The plaintiff-respondent felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, dated 19-4-2000 and filed appeals which were also heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Khanpur who reversed the findings of the trial Court vide his judgment and decree, dated 9-10-2000 and while decreeing the suit for dissolution of marriage dismissed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights of the defendant- petitioner. The petitioner has felt aggrieved by the said judgment and decree and has filed the instant writ petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court merely on the ground that issues Nos. 1 to 3 were decided at one place and similarly issue No.3 has again been decided separately. He submits that issues Nos. 1 to 3 were actually issues Nos. 1 and 2 and it was on account of clerical mistake that it has been disclosed as issues Nos. 1 to 3. He further submits that findings recorded separately under issue No.3 clearly show that these findings pertain to issue No.3 as reproduced in the judgment of the lower Court. He further submits that it has been held by the trial Court while disposing of issues Nos. 1 to 3 that the said findings pertain to only two issues. He, thus, submits that on this ground the judgment of the trial Court could not be reversed. He further submits that the appellate Court has not taken into consideration the evidence which has come on record on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. While elaborating his contention, he submitted that it appears that the plaintiff-respondent has been restrained from going to the house of the defendant-petitioner her father as it has beat stated by her father (P. W.2) that her daughter (plaintiff-respondent) could not go to the house of her husband without his permission. He submits that this admission of P.W.2 clearly shows that the plaintiff-respondent was under the control of her father and it was on that account that she was not residing with her husband. He, thus, submits that this aspect of the matter has also not been taken into consideration by the Appellate Court. He further argued that while dissolving the marriage on the ground of Khula' no benefits have been ordered to be returned to the defendant/petitioner which have been derived by the plaintiff--respondent from the defendant- petitioner. He, thus, submits that even on this score the judgment of the appellate Court appears to have been announced without appreciating the evidence in its entirety. He has placed reliance on Sahibzada Sheheryar Abbasi v. Samia Abbasi and another 1992 1VILD 159 (Lahore) wherein while accepting the writ petition the matter was remanded to the trial Court for deciding the same with reference to the question of benefit of Khula'.
6. There is no doubt, that the present plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the defendant-petitioner and similarly the defendant-petitioner approached the Court for seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. It is also a fact that the trial Court while passing the consolidated judgment dated 19-4-2000 decreed the suit of the defendant-petitioner and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent wherein she has sought divorce from her husband/defendant-petitioner. However, on appeal the judgment of the trial Court has been reversed. In support of her contention the plaintiff-respondent recorded her own statement as P.W.1 and examined her father as P.W.2. In rebuttal the defendant-- petitioner recorded his own statement as D.W.1 and examined Allah Bakhsh as D.W.2. A perusal of the statement of plaintiff- respondent reveals that she has categorically stated that she would prefer to die than to live in the house of her husband/petitioner. There is no doubt that her father while appearing as P.W.2 has stated that his daughter would not visit the house of her husband without his permission. However, his this admission is not to be taken in isolation but is to be taken into consideration in the context of his statement which has come on record. If the said admission is taken into consideration in the context of statement of P.W.2 then it will be seen that the said admission is not going to detract the stand of the plaintiff--respondent, but on the other hand supports her contention. Even if it is assumed that P.W.2 has stated that his daughter was not allowed to come to the house of her husband, even then it will not make any difference as it is the statement of the plaintiff-respondent which is to be seen while granting the decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula'.
The plaintiff--respondent has categorically stated that she would prefer to die or to drown in the river than to live in the house of her husband. In view of this clear-cut statement on the part of the plaintiff-respondent it was not left with the trial Court to allow this hateful union to continue any further. The appellate Court has taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and thereafter has returned its finding in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
7. So far as the question of any benefit to be given to the defendant-- petitioner in lieu of dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula is concerned, suffice it to say that neither the plaintiff-respondent nor the defendant-petitioner has brought on record any documentary evidence on that score. Both the parties have tried to build their case on oral evidence on that score. It is in this context that the learned Additional District Judge has not deemed it proper to impose any condition while granting a divorce on the basis of Khula'.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.