Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MANSHA versus THE STATE

The Criminal Code of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Section 11 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1961), Section 494, accuses women of adultery before she was divorced orally by the complainant. Had a marriage contract with the accused. The allegations seven years after their marriage clearly show that there was some truth to the woman accused's position on oral divorce, the complainant was jailed for five years for kidnapping and fornication. He was not, before going to jail, when he was out on bail, nor did he take any steps, to show that he was still married to the accused woman. And two years after his release he filed a report record stating that the complainant had married another girl and was living with her and the accused. The woman was more interested in the return of jewelry and other articles, which she gave more than returning to her home at the time of marriage. She gave birth to several children, and for a long time as the wife of another man. Allowed to live together, the fact that the accused woman was married to a co-accused in the presence of her father, gives a clear indication that her previous marriage has already dissolved. Evidence on the record shows that it was not conclusively proved that the marriage between the accused woman and the complainant ended at the time of her marriage to the co-accused, with the prosecution suspending the accused against the suspects. I failed and the allegations were taken advantage of and I was acquitted. advocate for immigration from Abbaspur lawyer