ABDUL ZAHEER KHAN Versus YASMIN KANWAL

1. This Constitutional petition is directed against the judgment dated 9-7 1988 passed by the VIIth Civil and Family Judge at Karachi, decreeing the suit of the first respondent.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was married to the first respondent on 5-9-1985. The first respondent filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of `Khula'. The second respondent decreed the suit on the ground of `khula' with the observation that she was not entitled to get dower amount and entire maintenance. The petitioner being aggrieved against the judgment has tiled the present petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Shaukat Mehmood in support of the petition. The first respondent and her Advocate remained absent though served.

4. Mr. Shaukat Mohammed contends that the decree passed in favour of the first respondent ought to have appropriately been conditioned upon her paying the consideration of 'khula'. I have perused para. 8 of the plaint. A perusal thereof' would show that the first respondent averred in para 8 that the maintenance of the first respondent has been neglected throughout and the petitioner has thus avoided to discharge his legal liability wilfully and without sufficient cause. The petitioner denied the contents of para 8 of the plaint.

5. The first respondent has stated in her deposition that she was prepared to forego the entire amount of dower. The first respondent was suggested in her cross-examination that the entire dowel' amount was paid to her by the petitioner. It is significant to note that no question was put to her regarding maintaining her.

6. The father of the- first respondent has stated in his deposition that the dower amount was not paid by the petitioner. He also stated that the petitioner has not sent any maintenance to the first respondent since she is living separately. It is pertinent that he was cross-examined at length but no question was put to him about payment of dower amount. He denied the question in cross- examination that she is not entitled to any maintenance as she is living in his house.

7. The uncle of the first respondent has stated that the petitioner has not paid anything to the first respondent since she is living with her parents. It is pertinent to note that no question was put to her.

8. The petitioner has stated in his deposition that he was maintaining the first respondent properly when she was living with him. It is pertinent to note that in his cross-examination, he stated that he paid Rs.5,000 in cash as dower amount.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that there was sufficient material on the record to support the decree of the second respondent. The finding is in accord with the evidence on record.

10. I am, therefore, clear in my mind that the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court is perfectly legal and has been passed in the lawful exercise of his authority and jurisdiction and suffers from no infirmity either in law or in equity. I, therefore, dismiss this petition. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.

11. H.B.T/A-567/K

12. Petition dismissed.