Law: Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939

Section: VIII,2,2(ii),2(iia),2(viii)

Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Section: VIII,6,8

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: XXXV,5

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 30

(a) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)--- ----Ss. 2(ii), 2(ii-a) & 2(viii)---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.6 & 8---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5, Sched.---Wife seeking dissolution of marriage---Family Court granting khula to wife without her asking for it--Legality---Cruelty as a ground, proving of---Standard of proof to be adopted by courts in family cases highlighted---Husband contracting second marriage without wife s permission constituting cruelty and such ground alone sufficing for seeking dissolution of marriage---Scope---Brief facts were that the petitioner/wife filed a suit against respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage, during which the family court granted khula and ordered her to return her dower comprising a plot, gold, and money---Petitioner s (wife's) appeal and constitutional petition were dismissed---During the marriage, the respondent/husband contracted a second marriage without the petitioner s (wife) consent or permission from the arbitration council---The legal issue for determination before the Supreme Court was whether the family court could lawfully convert a suit for dissolution into khula without the wife s consent, and whether the correct legal standard was applied in assessing the statutory grounds for dissolution, particularly cruelty, non-payment of maintenance, and contracting a second marriage in violation of law ?---Held: Family Court dismissed the petitioner s (wife's) evidence because it was unsupported by documents establishing cruelty---Family court failed to consider the evidence as a whole on the balance of probabilities, to determine whether the petitioner (wife)was entitled to dissolve the marriage---It was the duty of the family court and the appellate court to give weightage to the petitioner s story on the balance of probabilities rather than treat the absence of documentary proof as conclusive to the fact that cruelty was not established---Both the family court and the appellate court readily accepted the respondent s (husband) evidence even though he did not produce a single witness to corroborate his stance of good behavior or to corroborate his…