Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 574-B of 1983, decided on 16th March, 1983.
--S. 498-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 16-Bail-Accused (woman) allegedly remarrying without getting her nikah with her first husband dissolved-First husband making statement before Family Court that he had divorced accused (woman) and sent notice to Chairman but taken back notice after 14/15 days and that Rukhsati had not taken place-Question of guilt of accused, held, requiring further inquiry in circumstances --Bail granted.
M. M. Jamal for Petitioners.
Sh. Dilawar Hussain for the State
This is an application for bail on behalf of Mst. Faiz Elahi and Khuda Bux petitioners in a case under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at P. S. Mailsi, vide F. I. R. No. 68/83, dated 1-4-1983.
2. The prosecution case is that Mst. Faiz Elahi was married to Nazar Muhammad on 11-9-1973 and without getting this Nikah dissolved, she contracted second marriage with Ghulam Murtaza co-accused on 8-12-1982 and that Khuda Bux petitioner No. 2, signed both Nikahnamas.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since Nikah of Mst. Faiz Elahi was admittedly performed with Nazar Muhammad during her minority and she repudiated the same by contracting second marriage with Ghulam Murtaza, therefore, she has not committed any offence.
As against this, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has seriously opposed this application on the ground that the Nikah of Mst. Faiz Elahi was performed on 18-9-1973 and thereafter, the marriage having been consummated the question of repudiation of that Nikah by Mst. Faiz Elahi after the age of 18 years does not arise and as such her Nikah with Nazar Muhammad is alive.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that on 19-3-1982 Nazar Muhammad complainant in his statement before Judge Family Court has stated:--
Without making any expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the case of either party, I am of the opinion that in view of the statement of the complainant reproduced above, the question of the gailt of the petitioners requires further enquiry. They are accordingly allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C./Duty Magistrate, Mailsi.
M. Y. H. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer