Find a Lawyer

ISHTIAQ AHMAD versus THE STATE

, S, 6 - Husband who contracted a second marriage without the consent of several marital arbitration councils - The question of whether Muslim family law was against Article 6 of the Ordinance, 1961, was held by his ex Concealed by a marriage / spouse, or contracting a second marriage with the utmost disregard of his wife, can disrupt the love, peace, and mercy of Allah Almighty - when a husband, without his wife's permission or secretly But if he marries the second wife, then the question is whether there are issues with his first wife can he be categorized or that he will be And while maintaining the basis of equality, after issuing warnings that justice should be done to wives, Allaah wanted to prevent husbands from doing injustice, stating that in such cases men should take only one. ] - An attempt was made to prevent injustice under section 6 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, thus, it complied with Islamic orders [PP 192, 193] A&B

PLD 2017 Supreme Court 187

Present: Dost Muhammad Khan, Qazi Faez Isa and Maqbool Baqar, JJ

ISHTIAQ AHMAD—Petitioner

versus

The STATE and others—Respondents

Criminal Petition No. 1252 of 2016, decided on 21st February, 2017.

(On appeal against the order dated 20-6-2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Crl. Rev. No.484 of 2016).

(a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) —

—S, 6—Polygamy—Husband contracting another marriage without permission from Arbitration Council—Question as to whether S.6 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 was against the Injunctions of Islam—Held, that concealment by a husband of his previous marriage/s or contracting another marriage with callous disregard of his wife may disrupt the love, tranquillity and mercy ordained by Allah Almighty—When a husband, without his wife's permission or in secret, took another wife, question was whether his dealing with the first wife could be categorized as just or whether he was maintaining the footing of kindness and equity—After issuing the warning that wives must be dealt justly, Almighty Allah wanted to prevent husbands from doing injustice by prescribing that in such cases a man should take only one [wife]—Since S.6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 sought to prevent injustice being done, thus, it confÓrm;ed to the Islamic injunctions. [pp. 192, 193] A & B

(b) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) —

—S. 6(2)—Polygamy—Husband contracting another marriage without permission from Arbitration Council—Plea of husband that at the time of second marriage term of elected councillors had expired and local government elections had not been held, therefore, there was no Chairman of the Arbitration Council before whom he could submit an application for second marriage—Validity—Said plea was not sustainable because in the absence of elected representatives the Administrator or another designated officer acted as the Chairman-Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. [p. 193] C

(c) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)—

—S. 6(5)(b)—[Punjab] Rules made under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 21—Polygamy—Husband contracting another marriage without permission from Arbitration Council—Person competent to file complaint—Scope—Plea of husband that the court could not take cognizance of the offence on the complaint of the first wife since the Union Council had not itself complained to the court— Validity—Said plea was not correct because R.21 of the [Punjab] Rules made under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 required the submission of complaint by an “aggrieved party ”—Wife clearly was an aggrieved party and tent a written complaint, which was forwarded to the Magistrate by the Administrator, Union Council—Since the rule did not stipulate whether the complaint was to be submitted to the Court by the aggrieved party herself or it may be routed through the office of the Chairman or the Union Council it would not be appropriate to impose any particular mode of submission of complaints in such regard— Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly, [p. 193] D

(d) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) —

—S. 6(5)(b)—[Punjab] Rules made under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 6(2)—Polygamy—Husband contracting another marriage without permission from Arbitration Council—Husband was sentenced to imprisonment for one month and directed to pay a fine of five thousand rupees—Legality and propriety of sentence—Husband conceded that he was already married and he also had a child from his first wife when he contracted a second marriage without obtaining permission from the Arbitration Council—Admittedly, the husband did not submit an application seeking permission to enter into another marriage, as required by subsection (2) of S.6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 read with R.6(2) of the [Punjab] Rules made under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, therefore, the Arbitration Council was not constituted, let alone one that could have granted him the requisite permission—Husband had disregarded the law and must suffer its consequences—First wife had not given her consent for the second marriage as she herself submitted a complaint against the husband, and testified in court—Husband did not testify on oath to aver that his wife gave her consent for him to contract another marriage—Ingredients of the offence under S.6(S)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 thus stood established—Supreme Court observed that husband was lucky as the Trial Court had treated him very leniently in the matter of punishment by sentencing him to imprisonment for only one month as he could have been imprisoned for up to a year—Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused, [pp. 193, 194] E & F

Aftab Alam Yasir, Advocate Supreme Court along with Petitioner in person and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 17th February, 2017.

female advocates from Jampur lawyer