Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NASIR KHAN versus STATE

Section 497 (5) offense of adultery (Enforcement Code of 1979), ordinance (VII VI 1979), cancellation of section 16 pre-arrest bail, the complainant's refusal to grant his son's pre-arrest bail, Despite the divorce from his daughter, he was still living with her and they were both living as husband and wife. The facts regarding the confirmation of divorce were disputed in this case. It was stated before the court that the petition was made under section 7 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 and it was signed by his father-in-law (complainant) Was presented to the Council, but he never had not joined the union council office and never received a certificate confirming the divorce canceled the divorce that is the statement of the accused. 74 days after the divorce was signed, the accused's wife also appeared in the High Court and confirmed that the divorce was canceled and Raju had replaced her before the expiry of her term. ? Ginghanut and she had supported the stand taken by her husband in a complaint to the court, but he did not include her daughter in the case, though the charges against her were also against her son-in-law. Were matched, and it adopted an election policy and chose one of them. The complainant's behavior of the accused had intensified the proceedings, which were the basic basis for bail before the arrest and after Raju's tenure between the two sides, the dispute led to further investigation against the accused. Was and family advocate from Sangla Hill lawyer