' Through this Constitutional petition Hashim son of Sawan assailed consolidated judgment and decree, dated 26-1-2002 passed by Judge Family Court, Jampur/respondent No,1 whereby suit of Mst. Tasleem Mai (respondent No,2) for dissolution of marriage was decreed and consolidated suit filed by the writ petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights against respondent No,2 was dismissed.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment and decree are illegal, void, without lawful authority and jurisdiction because evidence was misread/non-read; findings are based on surmises and conjectures, proper opportunity for reconciliation was not provided by the Judge Family Court and that marriage was dissolved only on the ground of Khula' without making any order to respondent No,2 to return the benefits received by her from the writ petitioner.
3. Perusal of the impugned judgment coupled with the order-sheet and evidence recorded during the consolidated trial shows that it does not suffer from non-reading or misreading of evidence.
Marriage was dissolved by the trial Court on the basis of Khula'.
4. On 19-1-2002 during post-trial reconciliation proceedings the learned trial Judge has recorded his observation appearing at page 35 of the file which is reproduced as under:-- "During the post-trial reconciliation this Court observed the attitude of the parties minutely. The plaintiff showed extreme hatred and aversion for the defendant and the defendant on the other hand, was found to be man of fickle mentality. The plaintiff appeared to be a literate lady and she was not prepared to reconcile despite hectic efforts made by the Court for the purpose. Hence post-trial reconciliation proceedings are declared as failed."
5. During her statement Mst. Tasleem Mai/respondent No,2 had unequivocally stated that she is not prepared at any cost to live with the defendant as he is cruel barbarian and that she wants divorce from him.
6. The writ petitioner could not prove before the learned trial Court as to what benifits were received by respondent No,2 from him during the subsistence of marriage. Nikahnama copy whereof is available on record reveals that a sum of Rs,95,000 was obtained by the father of respondent No,2 for giving her hand to the writ petitioner. The said amount was not received by respondent No,2. No illegality was, therefore, committed by the learned trial Court in not making any order for the return of the alleged benefits by way of Khula'.
7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner could not point out which portion of the evidence was not read or what piece of evidence was misread by the trial Court. Respondent No,1/Judge Family Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit for dissolution of marriage as well as that of restitution of conjugal rights. The learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to show as to how the impugned judgment and decree are without lawful authority. This Constitutional petition being devoid of any force is accordingly dismissed in limine.