Decreeing the suit on the basis of ‘khula’

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that remedy of appeal is not available in view of section 14(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1964; that the impugned order is against law and facts on record; that while decreeing the suit on the basis of ‘khula’ the learned trial Court has ignored the pleadings of the petitioner in which she had also alleged cruelty on the part of the respondent; that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to prove her ground of cruelty by production of evidence, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law; that though the dower was paid in cash at the time of ‘nikah’ but the same was taken back by the respondent and as such there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to order for return of the dower amount without recording evidence of both the parties in this respect; that even otherwise, in any case the amount of dower could not be ordered to be returned rather only a part amount was required to be returned under section 10(5) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside to this extent. Reliance is placed on the cases of Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh and another (2006 SCMR 100) and Muhammad Bashir Ali Siddiqui v. Mst. Sarwar Jahan Begum and another (2008 SCMR 186).  

Part Of Judgment
Lahore High Court
WP- Family Law
25336-15
2016 LHC 4629