ABU TALIB KHAN BARKI Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT

ORDER

AYESHA A. MALIK, J.-- The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.06.2015 passed in W.P. No.3693/2014 wherein his petition challenging the grant of Khula by Judge Family Court, Lahore dated 03.01.2014 was dismissed by learned Single Judge.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the impugned judgment has upheld the order of Judge Family Court, Lahore dated 03.01.2014 wherein Khula was granted to Respondent No. 2 without following due process. Specifically Respondent No.2 was required to return the Haq Mehr which included 40 tolas gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage in lieu of the decree for dissolution of marriage. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases cited at Muhammad Zafar v. Judge Family Court and another (2005 CLC 1844) and Mst. Ishrat Bano v. Noor Hussain and 2 others 2010 YLR 2452.

3. We have gone through the record as well as the impugned judgment and find that no case for interference is made out. Respondent No.2 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula, which was decreed by Judge Family Court, Lahore on 03.01.2014. In terms of the order dated 03.01.2014 Respondent No.2 was required to return the amount of Rs.1,000/- to the Appellant as Zar-e-Khula. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that Respondent No.2 was also required to return 40 tolas gold ornaments, which was given to her by the Appellant at the time of marriage. In this regard, he has relied upon Nikahnama, which provides in clause 17 as a special condition that the Appellant will provide Respondent No.2, 40 tolas gold which will be in the ownership of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel has argued that clause 17 of the Nikahnama is a special condition for Haq Mehr as provided in clauses 13 to 16 of the Nikahnama. Learned counsel further argued that clauses Nos.13,14, 16 and 17 have to be read together as a whole, meaning thereby that at the time of Khula, Respondent No.2 was to return Rs.1,000/- as prescribed in clause 13 along with 40 tolas gold as prescribed in clause 17. We find that the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant are misconceived and contrary to the terms and conditions of the Nikahnama. Clause 13 deals with the quantity of Haq Mehr, clause 14 requires the payment to be offered prompt or deferred, clause 15 contemplates whether any part of the payment will be made at the time of marriage and clause 16 provides whether the whole Mehr or in lieu thereof any part of the property has been given. Clause 17 is an independent clause, which provides ( ) which means any special condition attached to the contract of marriage. This special condition is not related to Haq Mehr but is an independent clause, meaning thereby that any item given through this clause to Respondent No.2 does not have to be returned by Respondent No.2 for grant of Khula. The amount of Haq Mehr and its payment is a specific condition of the contract contained in clauses 13, 14,15 and 16 of the Nikahnama. Clause 17 is an independent clause, which is not related to the amount of Haq Mehr. It allows the parties to make any special condition at the time of the Nikah. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no illegality is made out in the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge in this connection. We note that the cases relied upon are judgments of a learned Single Judge of this Court and are not binding on this Court. Even otherwise they are not relevant to the issue at hand. Appeal is dismissed.

KMZ/A-91/l Appeal dismissed.