JAN MUHAMMAD vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a decree of dissolution of marriage granted by the Family Court in favor of the respondent, Mst. Rashidan Bibi, on the grounds of Khula' and non-maintenance. The petitioner challenged the decree, arguing that the Family Court failed to require the respondent to return benefits received during the marriage as Zar-e-Khula. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition, finding sufficient evidence for the dissolution. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the decree was supported by sufficient material on the record. Regarding the petitioner's grievance concerning the return of benefits, the Court observed that the petitioner had failed to claim or establish before the trial court that he had provided any specific movable or immovable property to his wife. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's decision. The key principle established is that a claim for the return of benefits (Zar-e-Khula) as a condition for the dissolution of marriage must be substantiated by evidence before the trial court.
- Is a husband entitled to the return of benefits as Zar-e-Khula if he fails to prove the provision of such benefits before the Family Court?
- Does a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula require the automatic return of dowry articles if no specific benefits were claimed or proven by the husband?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, .J.--The petitioner in this petition for special leave to appeal was married to Mst.
Rashidan Bibi, respondent No. 2 on 6-12-1982. Mst. Rashidan Bibi filed a suit for dissolution of marriage inter alia on the ground of Khula' and non-maintenance. The Family Court at Sahiwal decreed her suit on the ground of Khula' with the observation that she was not entitled to get back the articles of dowry and that she should surrender those articles as Zar-e-Khula. The petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the decree passed by the learned Family Court. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the writ petition with the observation that there was sufficient evidence to grant a decree of dissolution even on the ground of non-maintenance. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that there was sufficient material on the record to support the decree of the learned Family Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with it. It may be mentioned that before the learned Family Court, the petitioner had raised a question of its territorial jurisdiction but it was decided against him. He has not pressed this objection before us. His only grievance is that while decreeing the suit the learned Family Court did not call upon Mst. Rashidan Bibi to return the benefits which she had received from him. We have gone through the statement which the petitioner made before the learned Family Court. In that statement he has made no claim that he had given any property, movable or immovable, to his wife. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case where leave should be granted. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- FOZIA BEGUM Versus TARIQ HUSSAIN 2004 CLC 1186