MUHAMMAD PARVEZ Versus MUHAMMAD YUSUF
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a husband against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a decree for the dissolution of marriage via Khula' granted in favour of his wife. The petitioner contended that the Khula' decree was legally flawed because the lower courts failed to record a specific finding that the parties would be unable to observe the limits of Allah, which the petitioner argued is a mandatory prerequisite for such a decree. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had explicitly addressed the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to Khula' and had correctly applied the legal standard regarding the parties' inability to observe the limits of Allah. The High Court had also reviewed this finding and concurred with the trial court's conclusion. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the findings of fact were both legal and proper, declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts in its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Is a specific finding regarding the parties' inability to observe the limits of Allah a necessary prerequisite for the grant of a Khula' decree?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a family dispute regarding Khula'?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a husband in a family dispute from judgment dated 24‑3‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, whereby his constitutional petition, challenging the grant of decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of respondent No.2, was dismissed.
2. 2 The learned counsel has contended that the Khula' decree should have been set aside by the High Court, because there was no specific finding that the parties would not be able to keep the limits of Allah, which is an essential ingredient of such a decree.
3. Issue No.4‑A in this case reads as follows: "4‑A Whether plaintiff is entitled for Khula' divorce, if so, on what terms? OPP
3. The discussion by the learned Trial Judge on this issue shows that he was fully conversant with the rule that Khula' decree can be granted when it is found that the parties would not be able to keep the limits of Allah. Not only this, the learned Judge in the High Court also examined the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Khula' from that angle and came to the same conclusion as reached by the learned Trial Judge. That being so, we do not find any justification for interference with the findings of fact challenged by the petitioner in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. They are unexceptional whether looked at from then point of legality or propriety. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refuse and the petition is accordingly dismissed.
4. M . Y . H . / M‑558 / S Petition dismissed.