AMANULLAH vs DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dissolved a marriage on the ground of Khula'. The parties had a history of marital discord, with the wife previously seeking refuge in Darul Aman and alleging physical abuse by the husband. While the Family Court and the District Judge had initially dismissed the wife's suit for dissolution and decreed the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights, the High Court reversed this decision, granting the dissolution based on Khula'. The Supreme Court examined the District Judge's rejection of the Khula' plea, which had erroneously required 'objective proof' of the parties' inability to live within the limits prescribed by God. The Supreme Court held that given the intimate nature of the marital relationship and the difficulty of proving private grievances, a wife's assertion of hatred toward her husband cannot be summarily rejected. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the wife's subjective assertion of hatred is sufficient for Khula' when the circumstances indicate an irreparable breakdown of the marriage. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a wife's assertion of hatred towards her husband be rejected summarily in a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula'?
- Is objective proof required to establish the grounds for Khula' in a dissolution of marriage suit?
- Does the intimate nature of the marital relationship preclude a requirement for objective evidence when a wife claims hatred for her husband?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner married the respondent on 30-3-1977. There were three issues of the marriage. Apparently, the two spouses were not getting on well together and the contesting respondent had to on an occasion take refuge in the Darul Aman. On 7-2-1990, she filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and one of the pleas taken by her was that of Khula' The petitioner on his part also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Family Judge at Gujranwala dismissed her suit but decreed that of the petitioner. His judgment was affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Gujranwala. The contesting respondent filed a Constitution petition in the High Court.
This was allowed and the learned Judge on the ground of Khula' directed the dissolution of the marriage. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Considering the past history of relations between the parties before they A came to the Family Judge the order of the learned Judge in the High Court dissolving the marriage on the ground of Khula' is unexceptionable.
3. Before we conclude we may refer to a passage in the judgment of the learned District Judge whereby The rejected the plea of Khula' taken by the contesting respondent. He stated: "Khula' form of dissolution is invoked in cases where it is proved objectively that parties cannot reside within the limits imposed by Almighty God."
I am not sure what the learned District Judge precisely meant when he used the words 'prove objectively'. It was on record that the contesting respondent was making persistent allegations that the petitioner was assaulting her. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police that the petitioner had beaten her and that under the orders of a Magistrate she was sent to the Darul Aman by way of protection from the petitioner. In the circumstances, when the contesting respondent stated that she had developed hatred towards the petitioner her assertion could not be rejected summarily; it may also be mentioned that the relationship between the husband and wife is of a very intimate nature. It may also be too embarrassing for either of them to disclose to the Court what has transpired between them in the privacy of their home. That being so, there can hardly be any standard for assessing the substance in the wife's assertion that she has developed hatred for her husband. Apparently, the learned District Judge was oblivious of the view taken by his own Court in a number of cases on the right of a woman to seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula' . Some of these have been reported as Rashida Bibi v. Bashir Ahmad PLD 1983 Lah. 549; Ghulam Zohra v. Faiz Rasool (NLR 1984 (Civil) Lahore 308) and Shahida Khan v. Abdul Rahim Khan PLD 1984 Lah.
365.
4. Leave is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others 2005 PLD Supreme Court 293