ABDULLAH vs Mst. ABIDA and anothers
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage on the ground of Khula. The petitioner argued that the Family Court failed to independently determine whether the spouses could live within the limits prescribed by God. The Supreme Court examined the merits, noting that the petition was also time-barred by 35 days. Regarding the merits, the Court found that the Family Court had properly considered the significant age difference between the parties (the husband being 70/80 years old and the wife 40) and the husband's own admission in cross-examination that the wife harbored hatred toward him. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to re-examine factual findings that were competently concluded by the trial court. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Family Court's reasoning regarding the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage was sound, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Can the High Court interfere with factual findings of a Family Court in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a significant age difference between spouses a relevant factor in determining a claim for Khula?
- Does a husband's admission of his wife's hatred toward him support a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24-4-1995 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No,2816 of 1993, filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment/decree dated 24-6-1993 of the learned Judge Family Court, Jampur, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No,1 on the ground of Khula' , dismissing the same. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. The above petit on is barred by time by 35 days and the ground for the delay, that the petitioner had undergone through eye operation seems to be not sufficient as the operation was carried out prior to the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of the petition for leave to appeal.
3. However, we have examined the case on merits. The thrust of the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, was that the learned Judge Family Court had not recorded a finding of fact independently on the question, whether the petitioner and respondent No,1 could not live within the limits prescribed by God for husband and wife.
4. The above contention is untenable. The learned Judge in Chambers has dilated upon this aspect as under:-- "The trial Court has also taken notice of the difference in the ages.Of the spouses. According to D.W.2, petitioner is aged about 70/80 years whereas the plaintiff/respondent No,1 is about 40 years of age. The defendant, when appeared as D.W.1 himself admitted in cross-examination that the wife hates him, because if she did not hate him, she would not have filed the suit, in view of this state of evidence, the objection to the grant of decree has no force and is hereby rejected."
In our view, there is no legal infirmity in the above reasoning. The learned Judge in Chambers was justified in not pressing into service his Constitutional jurisdiction involving determination of question of fact which was competently concluded by the learned Judge Family Court inter alia on the basis of the admission of the petitioner in cross-examination. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused.