MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus THE STATE
The Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Sections 10 (2) and 16 of the testimony on the same day affected the female defendant and even if the complainant gave the chairman a notice, the union council had expired 90 days. Had already given up the same, which did not change the legal status of the marriage 11 6 1989 The accused who had been legally married to each other, therefore, cannot be held liable for committing adultery Nor did the male suspect commit the crime of seducing the female accused, according to which the accused was acquitted.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
immigration advocate from Kotli Loharan lawyer
