IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.---Bashir Ahmad petitioner, married Mst. Nagina respondent, on 12-9-1996 and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock. At the time of marriage gold ornaments weighing 15 Tolas and 1/2 share in house No.2920 in Muhallah Garhi Khana, Peshawar City, was fixed as dower.
After about twenty days of the marriage, the petitioner left the country and proceeded aboard in connection with labour. The respondent spent some time in the house of the petitioner and subsequently left the house due to statedly ill-treatment of the brother of the petitioner and started living in the house of her parents. The petitioner is alleged to have neglected to provide maintenance to the respondent and her daughter since August, 1997. Consequently Mst. Nagina instituted suit on 13-9-2000 against the petitioner for dower, maintenance and dissolution of marriage. She also accused the petitioner for having pronounced 'Talaq--e-Salasa' to the respondent. The suit was resisted and the respondent was stated to have left the house of the petitioner in his absence without any justification.
2. Bashir Ahmad also brought suit on 4-10-2000 against the respondent, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Both the suits were consolidated, necessary issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded. Consequently, vide judgment and decree, dated 22-3-2001, learned Judge Family Court, Peshawar, who tried the suits, came to the conclusion that pronouncement of 'Talaq-e-Salasa' by the petitioner has not been satisfactorily proved and that Mst. Nagina were is not entitled for decree for dissolution of marriage. However, claim of the respondent for dower and maintenance was allowed. The cross-suit of Bashir Ahmad for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed.
3. Both the parties i.e. Bashir Ahmad and Mst. Nagina, feeling dissatisfied, filed appeals before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Peshawar. The Appellate Court partially accepted the appeals, dismissed the suit of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and accepted the suit of respondent for dissolution for her marriage. The remaining decree regarding payment of dower and maintenance was kept intact.
4. Invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court instant writ petitions have been filed which shall be disposed by this single judgment.
5. Mian Fazle Amin, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas Mst. Nagina and her minor daughter were represented by Mr. Murtaza Khan Durrani, Advocate. We have heard in detail the arguments and submission of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on file.
6. The impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below have been assailed principally on the ground that sufficient material was brought on the record to demonstrate that the relations between the couple were cordial but Mst. Nagina left the house of her husband and took abode in the house of her partners without any rhyme or reason; that the petitioner had been regularly sending the maintenance allowance to the respondent through one Jehangir and that the dower amount already stood paid and that the findings of the Appellate Court to the contrary are ill- founded and not sustainable in the eye of law. On the contrary, learned counsel for the contesting respondents maintained that the couple lived together for a short span of time and thereafter the petitioner proceeded to the United States to earn livelihood; that the respondent was expelled from the house of the petitioner by his brother in May, 1997; that the petitioner has not provided maintenance to the respondent and her minor daughter since August, 1997 and that the dower is still unpaid. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel urged that respondent has been refused decree for dissolution of marriage on flimsy grounds and in total disregard to the evidence on record.
7. Jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is completely discretionary in nature and may be declined in appropriate cases. While exercising Constitutional jurisdiction this Court has to see if the Tribunal or Court acted without jurisdiction or in violation of any relevant statute or law and High Court in such cases, cannot embark upon a re-appraisal of evidence and proceed as if it were hearing alt appeal from a subordinate Court. It is the job of Appellate Court to weigh the evidence and same has been done in accordance with law.
8. A clear reading of the impugned judgment would indicate that the learned Appellate Court has neither omitted nor ignored from its consideration the material placed before it. There was sufficient material on file to demonstrate that relations between the spouses were so strained that it was no more possible for them to live together as husband and were within the limits ordained by Allah and as such the learned Appellate Court was quite justified to break the marital tie and grant a decree for dissolution of marriage. We also notice that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Court had valid reasons to decline to pass a decree in favour of the petitioner husband for restitution of conjugal rights and dismiss his suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or misinterpretation of law, inviting Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Muhammad Yasin v. Mst. Razia Begum and another (1986 CLC 1996 Lahore) and Muhammad Aslam v. Kausar Parveen and another (1987 CLC 256 Lahore).
9. In view of what has gone above, it follows that the impugned decision has been arrived at on the correct analysis of the evidence and the leaned Appellate Court has not acted without jurisdiction or without lawful authority justifying interference of this Court. The writ petition is not maintainable, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.