Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition No. 1255 of 1986, decided on 26th October, 1986.
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 16‑‑Quashing of F.I.R.‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Decree for dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula' granted to accused/petitioner‑ Compromise allegedly signed by counsel of accused/petitioner‑‑Signing of compromise deed by counsel on her instructions, yet to be seen‑ Investigation of case in progress‑‑Factual controversy could not be gone into in writ jurisdiction‑‑Quashing of F.I.R., refused in circumstances.
Mst. Taj Mai has filed the constitutional petition for the quashment of the F.I.A. No. 333 of 1986, dated 21‑8‑1986 lodged against her under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. She has stated that she was never married to Sarwar respondent No. 2 and is the wife of one Khadim Hussain. She had lodged a suit for dissolution of marriage which was compromised and her learned counsel signed the compromise deed on her behalf and Khadim Hussain is stated to have signed in person. Decree on the basis of Khula' was granted to the petitioner on 13‑4‑1986 and the alleged Nikah with Sawan is stated to have been performed on 14‑4‑1986. Sawan reported to the police that his wife had eloped with one Kala with ornaments and clothes and she had been abducted for the purpose of rape. According to her, she did not sign the compromise deed nor did she appear before the learned Judge Family Court when the order of Talaq was pronounced and her Nikah with Sawan was concocted on the next day of decree i.e. during the period of Iddat which is irregular. She was recovered and she went to the house of her husband Khadim Hussain.
2. It is yet to be seen whether her learned counsel signed the compromise deed on her instructions. Factual controversy is involved in this case which cannot be gone into in a writ petition. The investigation of this case is in progress and at this stage I see no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same.
S.A./T‑3/L Writ refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer