The instant writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree; dated 30-5-2000 whereby the trial Court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.2 filed for recovery of maintenance and that of defendant/petitioner filed for restitution of conjugal rights, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.2 filed against the defendant/petitioner for dissolution of marriage.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that parties were married on 25-11-1994 and thereafter plaintiff/respondent No.2 had been residing with the defendant/petitioner for a week. She thereafter left the house of her husband and started residing with her parents. As the relations between .The parties became strained, so she filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the defendant/petitioner. The claim of plaintiff/respondent No.2 was controverted by defendant/petitioner by filing written statement wherein he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
Alongwith this suit, she also filed a suit for maintenance which was also resisted by filing a written statement. Similarly defendant/petitioner also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was also resisted by the plaintiff/respondent No.2. All the three suits were consolidated by the trial Court and proceedings were initiated as one suit.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether the defendant has been treating the plaintiff with cruelty and also maltreats her? OPP.
(2) Whether, the defendant has not provided proper maintenance to the plaintiff? OPP.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage as prayed for? OPP.
(3-A) Whether the defendant is entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for?
OPP.
(4) Whether the defendant has got no cause of action to file the suit for restitution of conjugal rights? OPP.
(5) Whether the defendant is estopped by his words and conduct tm file the suit for restitution of conjugal rights? OPP.
(5-A) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover past maintenance from December, 1994 at a rate of Rs.1,000 per month and also at the same rate in future? OPP.
4. In support of her respective stand plaintiff/respondent No.2 examined herself as P.W.1 and brought on record statements of Imam Bakhsh P.W.2, Muhammad Asghar P.W.3 and thereafter closed her evidence. In rebuttal, the defendant/petitioner examined himself as D. W.1 and examined Ghulam Hyder as D.W.2, Saeed Ahmad D.W.3 and Faiz Ahmad D.W.4.
5. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.2 for dissolution of marriage vide judgment under revision. The trial Court also dismissed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights and similarly dismissed the suit for maintenance filed by respondent No.2/plaintiff, The defendant/petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed the instant writ petition.
6. Preliminary arguments have been heard and record perused
7. Contention of the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner is that as per Nikahnama, the plaintiff/respondent No.2 was to live in Village Eissani and she has been living there as his wife. He further submits that if another opportunity is granted, there is every likelihood of reconciliation between the parties.
8. A perusal of the record shows that marriage between the parties was soleminised on 25-11-1994.
The plaintiff/respondent No.2, as per her allegation, remained with the defendant/petitioner for a week and thereafter has been living in the house of her parents for the last 4/5 years. A perusal of her statement reveals that she has shown her willingness to forego all benefits which she has derived from the defendant/petitioner to claim divorce on the basis of Khula. She has also foregone her claim of past as well as future maintenance, to seek divorce. She has also foregone her right to the claim the house which is alleged to-have been constructed for her, if she is granted divorce on the basis of Khula.
9. Since the plaintiff/respondent No.2 has foregone her rights to acquire any benefit from the defendant/petitioner and has also been residing apart from him for the last 4/5 years, so there is no use to continue this hateful union of the parties. The trial Court has rightly granted divorce on the basis of Khula. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference, as such writ petition fails and is dismissed.