The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 solemnized marriage on 13-11-1992 in accordance with Injunctions of Islam. The dower was fixed Rs.100. Respondent No.2 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before the Judge Family Court Multan on 4-3-1999. Respondent No.2 alleged in her plaint that her Rukhsati did not take place she is still virgin. She is living alongwith her parents. The contents, of the plaint further reveal that Nikah was solemnized in the and at that time the respondent No.2 was 12 years old. She was not major at that time. Her consent was not given in respect of that marriage. The contents of the plaint further reveal that she cannot live with the petitioner at any cost. She has severe hatred for the petitioner as the petitioner is a vagabond. Respondent No.2 prayed for the decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula. The petitioner filed written statement controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. The petitioner also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 7-4-1999 before the Judge Family Court, Multah. The contents of the plaint of the petitioner reveal that it was an exchanged marriage. The contents of the petitioner's plaint reveal that petitioner has paid dower to respondent No.2. The petitioner has great love for the respondent No.2. The contents of his plaint further reveal that he wants to keeprespondent No.2 by providing all kind of maintenance. Both the suits were consolidated by the Judge Family Court. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge Family Court framed the following issues:-- Issues:
(1) Whether the defendant is unemployed? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has developed severe emotions of hatred against defendant? OPP.
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula? OPP.
(4) Whether defendant is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights? OPD.
(5) Relief.
The Judge Family Court decreed the suit on the ground of Khula of respondent No.2 whereas the suit of the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-2000, hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 appeared in the Court on 30-9-1999 and her Examination-in-Chief was recorded by the Judge Family Court. She did not thereafter enter appearance before the Judge Family Court for cross-examination despite several adjournments. The learned Judge Family Court was erred in law to accept the evidence of respondent No.2/plaintiff as the same is not admissible in the eyes of law. The petitioner produced sufficient evidence before the Judge Family Court but the Judge Family Court was erred in law to ignore the evidence of the petitioner. He further submits that respondent No.2 has miserably failed to prove issues Nos.2 and 3 as the respondent No.2 did not bring sufficient evidence on record to prove the aforesaid issues. He further submits that the learned Judge Family Court did not discuss the unrebutted material evidence of the petitioner available on the record. He further submits that judgment of the Judge Family Court is not sustainable in the eyes- of law as the same was passed in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts and is result of misreading and non-reading of the record.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record myself. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the finding of the Judge Family Court on issues Nos.2 and 3 to resolve the controversy between the parties which is as under: Issues Nos. 2 and 3.
"Onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff herself appeared in the witness-box and recorded her statement on oath. She stated that her Rukhsati did not take place. At the time of her marriage, she was not major. She alleged that she has hatred for the defendant. There is no chance of union. The defendant appeared as D. W.1. He has not denied the factum of hatred of the plaintiff. I am of the considered view that the plaintiff's sole statement on oath is sufficient to establish her claim in respect of hatred. It is impossible to live parties together as husband and wife. It will be hateful union if the marriage is not dissolved at this stage. It is established law that when a wife claims hatred on oath in Court, the marriage should be dissolved. In such situation, the marriage is hereby dissolved on the ground of Khula'. She will not claim any dower from the defendant- It will be considered as Khula consideration. The issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff."
The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that Judge Family Court passed the decree against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence. It is admitted fact that respondent No.2 did not want to continue the relationship as husband and wife. It is not in dispute that the Family Court in course of hearing of divorce suit attempted to bring about reconciliation between the parties but these efforts also failed. Considering the evidence, circumstances and probabilities of the case, Family Court felt that the existing unhappy relations between the parties held out no hope for their future happy living together within the limits prescribed by Allah. In the circumstances, purpose of marriage clearly seemed to be frustrated. Respondent/plaintiff has shown firm stand in asking for divorce. From the evidence and her conduct a clear inference available that reconciliation between the two was not possible. When such are the circumstances, it is better to separate them to live in an atmosphere perpetually saturated with suspicious, mutual distrust, discord and harted for each other. In an atmosphere of the type aforementioned, human life becomes a mere waste. It is pertinent to mention here that as has been noticed in several pronouncement of the superior Court that Islam does not thrust upon the parties a marriage devoid of bliss and happiness. In view of these circumstances respondent No.2/plaintiff was entitled to separation on the basis of Khula'.
The Court has neither omitted nor ignored from its consideration the material placed before it. In the absence of right of appeal conclusions arrived at are not reviewable in Constitutional jurisdiction case being fit one for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula I am fortified' by the judgment of this Court reported as PLD 1990 Lahore 158. Since the Judge Family Court has not given any finding regarding the ornaments etc. ; and no issue was framed. Even otherwise these benefits are civil liabilities. Parties are at liberty to agitate the matter before the competent forum. The Judge Family Court is competent to adopt of his own Procedure as per, sections 13 and 17 of the West Pakistan Muslim Family Act, 1964 as per principle laid down by this Court in 1999 CLC 81 Ghulam Murtaza v-- Additional District Judge. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in stricto senso in the proceedings under, the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.
With these observations this writ petition is disposed of.