' A suit filed by respondent No,1 for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of Khula was decreed by a learned Judge, Family 'Court, Talagang on 29-2-2000 with a condition that she will pay a sum of Rs,30,000 and five Tolas gold ornaments to respondent No,1.
Feeling aggrieved of the said condition respondent No,1 filed an appeal which was heard by learned respondent No,2 who allowed the same and removed the said condition from the decree of the learned Judge, Family Court. This was done vide judgment and decree dated 18-4-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it stood proved on record that at some point of time respondent No,1 had agreed to pay Rs,30,000 and five Tolas gold ornaments as a consideration for divorce and as such the learned Additional District Judge has acted without lawful authority while passing the impugned judgment removing the said condition imposed by the learned Judge, Family Court. Learned counsel for respondent No,1, on the other hand, with reference to the judgment in the case of Noor Muhammad v. Judge, Family Court, Burewala, District Vehari and another PLD 1989 Lah.31 argues that even if it be assumed that the said fact stood proved, when it had been denied by respondent No,1 herself, in the absence of any demand made by respondent No,1 either in his pleadings or in evidence, the learned Family Court was not bound to order payment of the said amount and gold.
3. We have gone through the copies of the records appended with this writ petition. In the plaint the respondents specifically pleaded that there is no chance of parties living together as husband and wife within the limits of Allah. In his written statement although the petitioner alleged that respondent No,1 had left his house taking away ornaments linen and cash but he did not make a specific demand that some benefits were conferred by him upon the petitioner and that she should return the same as consideration for Khula. So far as evidence is concerned what to speak of leading any evidence the petitioner did not even enter the witness-box to state that he had given some benefits and to demand the restoration of the same. In this view of the matter the law cited by the learned counsel for respondent No,1 is fully applicable to the facts of this case. I may state here that the Supreme Court of Pakistan has also takea similar view in the case of Dilshad v.
Mst. Musarat Nazir and another PLD 1991 SC 779. There is no force in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.