HOW TO VERIFY THIS DOCUMENT

Option 1.Scan it through any bar code reader or cellphone QReader Software

Option 2. Directly verify it from website http://shc.gov.pk/cfms-dc.php Document Code:

0AA76D3097610B266CE70AEB68DE4CAA

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL/FAMILY JUDGE & JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-I,

KOT GHULAM MUHAMMAD
(Before: Abdul Qadir Khoso)
Family Suit No: 33 of 2021
Madan son of Dheero
Adult, Hindu, by caste Kolhi,
R/o Vill: Abdul  Majeed Arain, Deh-333, KGM             ……….…Plaintiff
Versus
Sht. Paroo D/O Hemoon,
Adult, Hindu, by caste Kolhi,
R/o Vill: Thaku Kolhi, near 78 mori, KGM, Mirpurkhas….    Defendant.
Mr. Bheemchand Kolhi, learned counsel for plaintiff.
Mr. Satram Das, learned counsel for defendant.
JUDGMENT
09-12-2021
This judgment will dispose of suit filed by plaintiff for dissolution of his marriage against the defendant.
Brief facts of case of plaintiff as narrated in plaint are that plaintiff married with defendant on 12-12-2018,
according to his religion and custom of Kolhi (Hindu) community. That after marriage of plaintiff defendant
came to reside with plaintiff but she started talking on phone calls with strangers, on which plaintiff tried to
stop her but she did not mend her ways and changed her behavior with plaintiff. That plaintiff made
complaint to the parents of defendant, who also tried to make understand defendant but she did not change
her attitude. That defendant has been residing at the house of her parents and plaintiff has tried for number
of times but defendant is not ready to join plaintiff. That there is no issue out of this wedlock. That defendant
now wants judicial separation from defendant. Plaintiff states that for reasons mentioned above he has
developed hatred for defendant and now it is impossible for him to reside with defendant under same roof.
Hence plaintiff has filed instant suit with prayer to pass judgment and decree in favor of plaintiff as follows:
a.     Dissolve the marriage of plaintiff with defendant by granting judicial separation as per Hindu Customary
Personal Laws.
b.     Any other relief, which as may deem fit and proper under the circumstance of the case.
After admission of plaint, summon was issued to defendant for her appearance but defendant voluntarily
appeared through her counsel. On 17-05-2021 defendant filed written statement through her counsel, in
which she denied all allegation, leveled against her. Copy of W.S was provided to plaintiff.
Pre-trial proceeding U/s 10(3) were held and efforts made to reconcile the matter between the parties but
both sides did not agree to patch up. Therefore, pre-trial proceedings remained failed/unsuccessful. Hence
issues were framed and parties were directed to being their respective witnesses.
On the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed.
1.     Whether the suit in hand is maintainable under the law?
2.     Whether plaintiff is entitled for his claim of Judicial Separation against defendant as prayed?
3. Whether defendant is entitled for her claim of Restitution of Conjugal Rights?
4. What should the decree be?
On the above issues, Plaintiff Madan was examined on oath at Ex.09. Plaintiff was cross examined by the
defendant side accordingly. Thereafter, his witness Dhevshi, was examined and cross examined at Ex.10.
Learned counsel for plaintiff closed the side vide his statement at Ex.11.
In rebuttal, Defendant Sht. Paro was examined at Ex.12 and she was also cross examined by the plaintiff
side. Defendant witness Pirbho Das was examined at Ex.13. Learned counsel for defendant closed the side
vide his statement at Ex.14.
On 09-12-2021 Post-trial proceeding were held and efforts made to reconcile the matter between the
parties but both sides did not show any willingness for reconciliation and did not ready to patch up.
Therefore, Post-trial proceedings declared failed/unsuccessful.
Learned counsel for plaintiff mainly argued that the marriage of plaintiff with defendant has been held in the
year 2018, since then defendant has made life of plaintiff miserable. He added that defendant used to visit
house of her parents without permission and consent of plaintiff. He further contended that, parents of
defendant used to allow unknown persons to visit their house and made illicit relations with defendant. He
continued and added that plaintiff has objected many times and tried his level best to stop defendant to quit
such bad habits, which were supposed to destroy their matrimonial relations, but defendant never paid any
heed towards plaintiff. He added that due to these reasons plaintiff has developed hatred into his mind and
now it is not possible for plaintiff to join defendant. He argued that defendant has obtained decree for
restitution of conjugal rights from concerned court of law on dated 31-03-2021, which has been decreed in
the favour of defendant but plaintiff is not ready to join defendant, as he has fear that any untoward incident
could happen if he joins defendant. He added that no law of the land grant permission to direct any party to
join other without the consent. Hence, no one can be compelled to live in hateful relation. He added that suit
of plaintiff is truly maintainable under the law and he is equally entitled for the claimed relief of judicial
separation, which may kindly be granted. He further contended that though defendant has obtained decree
for restitution of conjugal rights against the plaintiff but due to extreme hatred plaintiff is not ready to join her
at any cost. Hence, plaintiff approached this court, with suit in hand, praying therein to dissolve the marriage
of plaintiff with defendant by way of judicial separation.
Conversely, learned counsel for defendant contended that defendant has already obtained decree for
restitution of conjugal rights, hence suit of plaintiff is not maintainable under the law. He added that learned
counsel for plaintiff and plaintiff himself has failed to establish the illicit relation of defendant with unknown
persons. He added that on mere allegation of illicit relations plaintiff is claiming judicial separation, which is
not maintainable under the law. He further added that plaintiff has failed to disclose this fact in his plaint too.
He prayed that suit of plaintiff is supposed to be dismissed. He maintained that under Hindu law marriage of
spouses is never dissolved and it remains intact for the entire life. He added that defendant has already
obtained decree for restitution of conjugal rights and for her maintenance vide decree dated 31-03-2021
from concerned court of law. He argued that if the honourable by considering the conduct of plaintiff, who is
not ready to join defendant, allows judicial separation even then defendant is entitled to receive maintenance
from the plaintiff, because marriage between the spouses shall remain intact, as this court either can
terminate the marriage or grant judicial separation and in both circumstances marriage of spouses shall
never be dissolved and plaintiff is under obligation to provide maintenance to defendant, in compliance of
the decree of honourable court of law granted on 31-03-2021. He added that according to section 16 of
Hindu Marriage Act-2017, both parties marry again after expiry of six months from final decision when
appeal period has passed or appeal has been dismissed, which reflects that marriage between spouses
remain intact.  Learned counsel contended that according to section 20 of said act, provisions of section 494
and 495 of the Pakistan Panel Code, 1860 (Act XLV of l860) shall apply accordingly, in which punishment of
bigamy is provided, by which any Hindu marriage solemnized after commencement of this Act is void if at
the date of such marriage either party had a spouse living. He interpreted that judicial separation does not
dissolve marriage completely and if any party marries again then section 494 and 495 of the Pakistan Panel
Code, 1860 (Act XLV of l860) shall apply.
Learned counsel for plaintiff contended that the question of maintenance, as raised by learned counsel for
defendant is not under question in the suit in hand, as same has been decided by concerned court of law.
He added that plaintiff has prayed for judicial separation in present suit, while defendant is claiming for
restitution of conjugal rights. Likewise, this honourable court has framed issues in the light of these prayers.
Learned counsel contended that when this court allowed judicial separation by which marriage of spouses is
supposed to be dissolved then how the plaintiff is bound to provide maintenance to defendant. He added
that learned counsel for defendant has miss-understood and wrongly interpreted section 16 of Hindu
Marriage Act-2017, in which it is stated that both parties may marry again after expiry of six months from
final decision when appeal period has passed or appeal has been dismissed. He added that word marry
again has been mentioned in said section, which clearly reveals that the first marriage was dissolved, hence
spouses are supposed to marry again. By this, first marriage does not remain intact. He further added that
section 20 of said act, provisions of section 494 and 495 of the Pakistan Panel Code, 1860 (Act XLV of l860)
shall apply accordingly, in which punishment of bigamy is provided, by which any Hindu marriage
solemnized after commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a spouse
living. He contended that these sections have wrongly been interpreted by learned counsel for defendant as
section 494 of PPC held that marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife is crime under the law, which
clearly means that during lifetime of spouses and intact of first marriage, second marriage is prohibited so
also same is crime, under the law and in section 495 of PPC it is held that contracting second marriage by
concealing former marriage from the person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted, which means
that if during intact of first marriage, second marriage is contracted by hiding the fact of first marriage from
subsequent person is crime, under the law. Hence, relating these section in present suit is not relevant, as in
both circumstances a crime is committed by the party, which is not situation in present case, as any of the
parties may supposed to marry after dissolution of present marriage. Likewise, question of maintenance
does not arise when marriage is dissolved by this court by way of judicial separation, which ultimately
dissolves the marriage of the spouses.
Heard the learned counsels for parties and perused the record. My findings on the above issues, supported
with reasons are as follows:-
F I N D I N G S.
                        My findings on the above issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1              Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2              Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3              Negative.
ISSUE NO.4              Decreed with no cost or another relief.
After hearing the parties I would like to discuss issue one by one as under:-
ISSUE NO.1.
On this issue I have heard both sides and perused that record very carefully available before me. I also have
heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both sides. Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the
Hindu personal law and customs prevailing in lower castes Hindus in Sindh permit the dissolution of
marriage by way of judicial separation. The counsel prayed for decree in plaintiff’s favor.
The learned counsel for defendant raised objection and argued that the suit in hand is not maintainable
under the law. He placed his reliance upon the case law PLD 2006 Peshwar 189 but perusal of the relied
case law reveals that the facts and circumstances of instant case are different than that of the facts and
circumstance of case law, on which learned counsel has made his reliance. The burden upon defendant to
prove this issue, but Defendant side has failed to prove the same. However, this Court is under legal
obligation to attend the important question relating to the maintainability of the suit and the genuineness of
the claim of plaintiff, arising out of the pleadings and decide the suit on merits to avoid any injustice to any
party. Reference may be made to the case of Shrimati AAshi vs Bhesham Lal (2019 C L C 1159 Sindh)
as per, Rule 6 of West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965 reads as under:-
          "6. The Court which shall have jurisdiction to try a suit will be that within the local limits of
which:
       (a) The cause of action wholly or in part has arisen, or
      (b) Where the parties reside or last resided together:
      Provided that in suits for dissolution of marriage or dower, the Court within the local limits of
which the wife ordinarily resides shall also have jurisdiction."
      Family Courts Act, 1964 and the Rules framed there under i.e. West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965
are applicable to all Family Courts and it is not limited to those who professes different religions. The
question before me is as to whether the trial court where a suit for judicial separation under Hindu Family
Law was filed could exercise jurisdiction in view of the facts, pleadings and the relevant rules as referred
above.
This issue pertains to the conundrum of the maintainability of the claims of the plaintiff. This Court is of view
that the suit of the plaintiff is very much maintainable and claims are within the schedule under the
jurisdiction of this Court. Further, the plaintiff is residing within the jurisdiction of this Court and the cause of
action also arose within the jurisdiction of this Court as per contents of the plaint. Hence, the suit of the
plaintiff is very much maintainable within the jurisdiction of this Court.
I am of view that, this Court being family Court is equally competent to adjudicate all matrimonial matters
involving Hindu couples as per schedule given in the WP Family Courts Act 1964. In this regard, it is very
apt to quote here the citation of Honorable High Court of Sindh PLD 2005 Karachi Page 334, where it was
held that:
“The Family Court constituted under the WP Family Courts Act, 1964 are competent to adjudicate upon the
matters pertaining to divorce claimed on the strength of customs. The practice of divorce exists, it is
recognized and practiced under the prevalent Customs of Hindu Dharma. Though it may vary place to place
and from community to community. The existence of the institution of divorce by way of custom having the
force of personal law is admitted to be in practice by the Hindu Menghwar community. The Family Courts
constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1964 are if competent to adjudicate upon the matters involving the
Hindu citizens of Pakistan to the extent as specified in the schedule to the said Act, which includes the
cases pertaining to divorce.”
I am convinced that this Court can entertain suits for Judicial Separation seeking by husband on the ground
of immoral character of his wife, having illicit relations with unknown persons. Hence, the plausible grounds
have been taken in the instant case by the plaintiff. So, the suit of plaintiff is maintainable under the law. This
issue is answered in Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2.
On this issue I have heard learned counsels for both sides and perused the available record minutely. In
Para No. 4 of plaint, plaintiff states that defendant is short tempered lady and she used to misbehave and
quarrel with him as well as his family members but defendant denied these allegation in her written
statement in Para No. 2, stating therein that defendant is not misbehaving lady and not used to quarrel with
plaintiff on petty maters or with his family members. It has also been stated in same para that defendant has
obtained decree for restitution of conjugal rights from concerned court of law against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, during his deposition has stated “That defendant remained good towards me later on her
attitude went aggressive and she started misbehaving with me as well as my family members. That
she is short tempered lady and I have fear that she may kill by poisoning me.” This clearly reflects that
plaintiff has great apprehensions from the side of defendant, as plaintiff has deposed and same has been
reproduced above, wherein plaintiff claims that attitude of defendant was good in the start of the marriage
but later on her attitude went aggressive and she started misbehaving with him as well as with his family
members. He further contended that he has clear apprehensions that due to short-temper attitude of
defendant towards him, she might kill by poisoning him. This clearly shows that life of plaintiff, as per his
contention might fall in danger, if court decline his prayer by not allowing judicial separation in his favour.
Apart from this, it also reflects from the stated stand of plaintiff that he is not happy from this marriage and
has developed hatred so also fear in his mind against the defendant. So, the court cannot direct any one to
continue a hateful relation.
No doubt, in our societies one side marries with other side with lot of dreams, but here, as per version of
plaintiff, his wife betrayed him and she is not having any affection towards the plaintiff. As per his contention,
for the sake of his future life, the plaintiff tolerated all the cruel behaviour of the defendant with him as well
as his family members. Even then defendant left no reason to pick up quarrels with the plaintiff and used to
find fault with each and every move of the plaintiff. But, according to the defendant, it is the plaintiff who
adopted this behavior with defendant and he forcibly sent the defendant to her parents’ house. Plaintiff
further contended that defendant wanted the plaintiff to behave like a slave and for the sake of future he
tolerated all this but now things have crossed its limit, hence plaintiff wants judicial separate to avoid further
cruel conduct of defendant. Hence, he prayed for dissolution of marriage by way of judicial separation.
The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that from the date of marriage, defendant never cooperated with
plaintiff and deprived him of the normal cohabitation and she had picked up frequent quarrels with him and
also threatened him by saying that she would commit suicide if plaintiff stops her from visiting her parents,
where she was is in illicit relations with unknown persons and her parents were fully supporting her. Hence,
plaintiff has left with no option other than to dissolve marriage by way of judicial separation.
In our society, Hindu marriage is considered as a sacrament. It is an irrevocable relationship between
husband and wife established through rituals and customs. Before Hindu Marriage Act-2017, there was no
relief available to either party in case of a failed marriage. They had to continue with the marriage and
couldn’t break the marriage. After the passage of Hindu Marriage Act, 2017 things changed in favor of both
parties to the marriage. Now, in case of a failed marriage, the parties do not need to suffer in the marriage
and can easily break their matrimonial alliance through Judicial Separation or by Termination. The Hindu
Marriage Act, 2017 makes the ground for judicial separation and divorce common. It is upon the parties to
choose between the two methods of dissolution.
Either party to the marriage, whether solemnized before or after commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act,
2017 can under Section 12 of the Act file a petition for judicial separation. The grounds for judicial separation
are same as for divorce.  Under Section 12, judicial separation may be sought on the following
grounds:

Adultery: If other spouse had a voluntary sexual intercourse with any person
other than his or her spouse after solemnization of marriage.
Cruelty: If after solemnization of marriage, one of the spouse treats the other
with cruelty.
Desertion: If the other party has deserted the spouse for a continuous period
of 2 years without any reasonable ground immediately preceding the
presentation of the petition.
Conversion: If one of the spouses has ceased to be a Hindu.
Insanity:  If the other party is of unsound mind or has been suffering
continuously from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that
the petitioner cannot live with the other party.
Leprosy:  If the other party has been suffering from a virulent and incurable
form of leprosy.
Venereal disease: If the other party has been suffering from venereal disease
in a communicable form.
Renounced the world:  If the other spouse has renounced the world by
entering any religious order.
Has not been heard alive for seven years.

In addition to these grounds some of the grounds are exclusively reserved for women:
(a) in the case of any marriage solemnized before commencement of this Act, that the husband had married
again before such commencement or that another wife of the husband married before such commencement
was alive at the time of the solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner:---
Provided that in either case the other wife is alive at the time of the presentation of the petition; or
(b) that the husband has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years;
(c) that the husband has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years or upwards; or
(d)  that her marriage, whether consummated or not, was solemnized before she attained the age of
eighteen’ years and she has repudiated the marriage before attaining that age;
Explanation.—This clause applies whether the marriage was solemnized before or after commencement of
this Act.

Husband has more than one wife living: If the husband had married before the
commencement of the Act and after the commencement of the Act has again remarried
either of the wives can present a suit for judicial separation provided the other wife is alive at
the time of presentation of the petition.
Rape, Sodomy or Bestiality: If a man is guilty of offense like rape, sodomy or bestiality, the
wife can present a petition for judicial separation.
Marriage before the age of fifteen years: If the marriage of women was solemnized before
attaining 15 years of age, on her attainment of 15 years she could repudiate it but before
attaining the age of 18 years.

The learned counsel for plaintiff further submitted that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant
has become almost irretrievably broken and there is no chance of reunion among the couple. On the other
hand, the learned counsel for defendant submitted that defendant is willing to join plaintiff and she never
refused to go with plaintiff, only plaintiff alone is refusing to live with the defendant. He would submit that
plaintiff never showed any kindness towards defendant during matrimonial life and he never used to give
respect either to defendant or to her family members. The learned counsel further submitted that it was the
plaintiff who forcibly sent the defendant to her parents’ house and the entire allegation set out by the plaintiff
in his plaint is nothing but a cock-and-bull story invented by him only to get divorce/judicial separation from
the defendant.
Learned counsel for plaintiff contended that whenever plaintiff eagerly approached defendant to cohabit and
to lead happy married life, she has simply told that she is not willing to live with him as his dutiful house wife
and wants to live along with her parents and further she has no interest to lead marital life with him as his
wife. Per contra, the case of defendant is that the plaintiff never showed any kindness towards her during
the matrimonial life and never give any respect either to the defendant or to her family members. According
to defendant, the plaintiff is not having any affection towards the defendant. It is the specific case of the
defendant that she is always ready for reconciliation and want to join plaintiff, but the plaintiff is not
interested to keep her as his wife. Learned counsel for defendant contended that mere trivial irritations,
quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life, which happens in day-today life in all families would not be
enough for grant of judicial separation.
However, the thing needs to be considered in this matter that spouses are living separately for a sufficient
length of time. In her evidence the defendant stated that she is willing to live with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff
is not willing to live with the defendant. When that being the plea of the parties, compelling the plaintiff to
lead matrimonial life with the defendant and similarly, forcing the defendant to go and live with the plaintiff
would not serve any purpose, as both the parties have failed to take effective steps for reunion. As per the
pleadings, the spouses are living separately since long. It has been held in number of judgments of superior
courts that once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time
and one of them has presented a suit for judicial separation/divorce, it can well be presumed that the
marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the
parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The
consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are
bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.
We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond
repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and
injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may
fairly be surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction, though
supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. Public interest
demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever
possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public
interest lies in the recognition of that fact. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be
compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a
marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.
It is settled law that marriage may be dissolved between the parties by way of judicial separation where the
Court finds that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down
irretrievably. Admittedly, the plaintiff and the defendant have been living separately for much time and it will
not be possible for the parties to live together and there is no purpose in compelling the parties to live
together in matrimony. Since, there is no issue out of this wedlock, hence custody of minors is not in issue
before us. In the peculiar facts of this case and in order to do complete justice between the parties as
present circumstances require that judicial separation between the parties may be allowed. In our opinion it
will not be possible for the parties to live together. Therefore, there is no purpose in compelling both the
parties to live together. So, the best course in our opinion is to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree so
that the parties who are litigating each other and have lost love and affection should lead life peacefully for
remaining part of their life.
It has already been admitted and discussed above that due to separation of plaintiff and defendant for much
time this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage though is not a ground
for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act yet where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created
by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of
marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage
which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court's verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is
because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly any
chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court's decree.
It is admitted fact that that pre-trail as well as post-trial proceedings were held and utmost efforts were made
to reconcile the matter between the parties but both proceedings ended in smoke. The plaintiff is not willing
to reconcile and rejoin defendant at any cost. In such circumstances, this court is of the view, that if one
party is not willing to join another party then the party, who is not willing in reconciliation cannot be
compelled to join other party as it shall be proved to be a hateful union.  
Following the decisions of the Honourable Superior Courts, this Court is of the view that since the parties are
living separately for last much time, the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. There
is no chance whatsoever of their coming together. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow dissolution of
marriage by way of Judicial Separation by considering the welfare of the spouses. It is now well settled
principal that in such hateful union, there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to
resume life. It is manifest that the plaintiff has been deserted by the defendant and the plaintiff has flatly
refused to join the defendant. I am fortified my views from the case of PLD 2021 Lahore 757 Liaquat----
Petitioner----Versus----Additional District Judge Gujranwala and 2 others, in which it has been held that  no
one should be forced to live in a hateful union. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the
plaintiff is entitled for the relief of judicial separation. Hence, this issue is decided as Affirmative. 
ISSUE NO.3.
On this issue I have heard learned counsels for both sides and perused the available record minutely. In
Para No. 7 of plaint, plaintiff states that mental condition of defendant is weak and it is not possible for
plaintiff to join defendant, hence plaintiff is passing through from a very miserable life but defendant denied
these allegation in her written statement in Para No. 3, stating therein that defendant is mentally stable and
wants to join plaintiff. Defendant in Para No. 2, states that she has obtained decree for restitution of conjugal
rights from concerned court of law against the plaintiff, hence suit of plaintiff is not sustainable under the law
and this court may direct plaintiff to join defendant.
The plaintiff, during his deposition has stated “She has already filed suit against me for recovery of
dowry articles, which has been decreed vide order dated 13-10-2021, by which she took away all her
dowry articles.” This clearly reflects that defendant has also made her mind for separation, hence she has
filed such suit for recovery of dowry articles. Apart from this, filing of present suit by plaintiff also reflects that
he is not willing to join defendant. The defendant, during her deposition has stated “he used to come home
lately, he is regular drinker and maltreat on petty matters to defendant. If Madan wants judicial
separation then I request that my dowry articles be returned and maintenance of myself may be
allowed.” From the perusal of this statement of defendant it clearly appears that defendant is not satisfied
from the attitude of plaintiff, as she alleged that plaintiff is late comer, regular drinker so also maltreat
defendant on petty matters. This again fortify the contention that both parties are on strand relations and
they have made up their minds of separation. Defendant has further deposed that if plaintiff wants judicial
separation then he may be directed to return dowry articles to defendant so also provide maintenance for
herself. The perusal of the record reveals that matter of dowry articles and maintenance have already been
decided by concerned courts of law, hence this court cannot interfere in decided matters, which have neither
be appealed nor compromised yet.
It is further alleged by the plaintiff in his deposition that he was shocked to hear from his relatives that
defendant has been having illegal and illicit relation with unknown persons even before marriage and that
the plaintiff came to know that, even after marriage said persons used to come to the house of the parents of
defendant, when defendant visit the house of her parents. He added that defendant lived as a wife with the
plaintiff only for some period of time and thereafter she failed and neglected to do her matrimonial
obligations. He contended that when he questioned about the same out of shock, the defendant coolly
informed that she has contacts with unknown persons even before the marriage and threatened the plaintiff
that if he disclosed the same to anybody she would commit suicide and throw the blame on the plaintiff. He
continued and deposed that defendant used to pick up petty quarrels with the plaintiff and create a big scene
and that even does not allow him to sleep and that she has also beaten the plaintiff on one or two occasions
when she got angry. He added that he cannot not tolerate the way she shouts at loud pitch using un-
parliamentary words and filthy language.
Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff patiently waited for the defendant to mend her ways, several
faislas were also held by the plaintiff so that the defendant may change her mind and lead a happy married
life; that the plaintiff pleaded with her to come along with him to the matrimonial residence, but the defendant
flatly refused. He added that it is the defendant who deserted the plaintiff at first; that the relatives of the
plaintiff had gone to meet the defendant and her relatives only to sort out the problems and mend the
strained relationship and requested them to settle the problem and advice defendant to mend her ways but
deaf ears were paid towards the plaintiff side.
On the other hand learned counsel for defendant argued that in-spite of all the cruelties, tortures meted out
by the plaintiff, the defendant is willing to live with him as a dutiful wife. He added that it is defendant who
has expressed her eagerness for reunion; that it is only the plaintiff who refused for the reunion. He further
contended that there is no iota of truth in the pleadings of the plaintiff; that it is the plaintiff who treated the
defendant cruelly for want of more dowry and deserted her and that the suit filed by the plaintiff is devoid of
any truth and no merits. Hence she had prayed for dismissal of the suit. He added that in-spite of all the
cruelties and tortures the defendant is willing to condone all his mistakes and willing to live with him as a
dutiful wife.
On above discussed points this Court comes to the conclusion from the evidence of the parties that there
was disputes between the defendant/wife and plaintiff/husband within a few weeks of marriage and it is the
categorical evidence of the defendant/wife that the plaintiff/husband had stopped maintenance to her.
Further this Court take note of the deposition of plaintiff/husband in which he has stated that he and his wife
lived happily for only some time and thereafter quarrels begun. It is further observed that it is not the case of
the defendant/wife that the plaintiff/husband ill-treated her and caused cruelty but he had suspected that she
was having illegal contact with unknown persons or that she might be having illicit intimacy with unknown
persons and ultimately plaintiff filed this suit on these ground.
I have carefully gone through the submissions made by both the counsels and also gone through the
records of the file. I am principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has come suspect
of immoral character, which is beyond repair, then it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that
fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been
much time of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair.
Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort,
nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.
According to the Law Commission Report, is that human life has a short span and situations causing misery
cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. A halt has to be called at some stage. Law cannot turn a blind eye
to such situations, nor can it decline to give adequate response to the necessities arising therefrom.
In the light of above discussion I am of the humble view that defendant is not entitled for her claim for
restitution of conjugal rights. By relying upon the decisions of the Honourable Superior Courts, this Court is
of the view that since the parties are living separately for last much time, the marriage between the parties
has irretrievably broken down. There is no chance whatsoever of their coming together. Therefore, this Court
is not inclined to direct plaintiff to restitute conjugal rights, as plaintiff is not willing to join defendant because
he has developed hatred into his mind due to the reason that defendant has illicit relations with unknown
persons and she is being supported by her parents rather being stopped from immoral character. It is now
well settled principal that in such hateful union, there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be
compelled to resume life. I am fortified my views from the case of PLD 2021 Lahore 757 Liaquat----
Petitioner----Versus----Additional District Judge Gujranwala and 2 others, in which it has been held that  no
one should be forced to live in a hateful union. Hence, claim of defendant for restitution of conjugal rights
stands dismissed. This issue is answered in Negative.
ISSUE NO. 6.
In view of above discussion, I am of the view that plaintiff is entitled for relief of Judicial Separation. The suit
of the parties is hereby decreed to the extent that marriage between the plaintiff and defendant is hereby
dissolved by way of Judicial Separation. As far as matter of dowry articles and maintenance is concerned it
has already been decided by concerned courts of law, hence needs no interference. There is no order as to
the cost. Let such decree be prepared.
Announced in the open court.
Given under my hand and seal of this court today on this 09th day of December 2021. 

(Abdul Qadir Khoso)

Civil/Family Judge & JM-I,
Kot Ghulam Muhammad