Zubaida Khatoon V/S Administrator Union Council Uch Gillani (Lah.)
1996 MLD 1689.
S.7. Talaq pronounced by husband to wife thrice …. Right of revocation by husband……. Legality …. Withdrawal of notice of talaq by husband from Administrator, Union Council…. Validity …. Talaq pronounced by husband to wife thrice would become “Bain” and husband would have no right of its revocation as per injunctions laid down in Holy Quran and Sunnah, relating to divorce and its revocation and to that extent provisions of S.7 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, would give its way to those injunctions as enshrined in the constitution.
1998 MLD 486. Mst. Rehmat Ara V/S Mehmoodul Hassan & another (Lah.)
S.7. Husband asserted that period of “Iddat” of 90 days must be counted from date of issuance of notice to Arbitration Council and not from the date of pronouncement of Talaq. Commencement of period “Iddat”… Talaq was validly given by husband on 9-6-1996 when the same was pronounced and period of “Iddat” of three months had expired on 9-9-1996 and talaq became final on said date. Withdrawal of talaq by husband on 21-10-1996 (after it had become final) was inconsequential and ineffective.
1998 MLD 85. Farah Khan V/S Tahir Hamid Khan & another (Lah.)
Marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized in accordance with provisions of Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 in Pakistan. Respondent divorced petitioner which was endorsed by Arbitration Council. Validity. Originally both petitioner and respondent were Pakistani citizens and after three years of marriage only respondent had acquired citizenship of USA. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, would extend to whole of Pakistan and applied to all muslim citizens of Pakistan wherever they might be in terms of S.(2) of the Ordinance. Provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, could be invoked where one of the party to marriage was Muslim citizen of Pakistan. Even if it was presumed that Arbitration council had no jurisdiction to entertain notice of talaq given by respondent under provisions of S.7 Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, right of talaq vested in husband under Sharia had not been taken away from any Muslim, irrespective of the country to which he belonged. Despite restrictions contained in Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, husband’s right of talaq would prevail as given to him under Quranic injunctions. Divorce pronounced by respondent had, thus, taken effect under Islamic injunctions even if notice to Arbitration council intimating such talaq or subsequent proceedings taken in that regard and certificate issued by Arbitration council endorsing effectiveness of talaq, were ignored. Constitutional petition also suffered from laches which would not warrant interference by High court at such belated stage when talaq under Sharia had already become effective.
NLR 2002 SD 161. Mst. Ambreen Shah V/S Chairman Union Council etc. (Lahore)
Pronouncement of triple talaq by husband. According to verse 230 of Surah Baqra of the Holy Quran, talaq becomes irrevocable. Husband cannot subsequently revoke such talaq.
PLD 2003 Peshawar 169.Fazli-e-Subhan V/S Sabereen & 3 Others (DB)
S.7 & 8. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 had abolished the practice of disapproved form of :Talaq" and mode prescribed in the ordinance was that of a "Talaq-e-Ahsan" and by the ordinance it had been made mandatory that the notice of "Talaq" would be effected only if efforts of reconciliation would fail. Law prevailing previous to the enforcement of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 had made it obligatory for the couples divorced by any mode of "Talaq" other than "Talaq-e-Ahsan" not to re-marry each other again, unless wife married another man who died or divorced her after actual consummation and she married her first husband after period of "Iddat". Before re-marriage parties had to prove that bar to their marriage was removed by intermediate marriage, consummation and dissolution, otherwise their marriage was not considered valid. Mode of "Talaq" effected under provisions of the 1961 Ordinance being almost that of "Talaq-e-Ahsan, the couples could re-marry without any intervening marriage except where they had been divorced thrice and the third divorce had become effective and in that case they could not re-marry without an intervening marriage. Plain reading of S.7 of the 1961 Ordinance, though had implied that all kinds of "Talaq" had been made revocable without an intervening marriage and could be that its repugnancy to such extent could validly be agitated on the touchstone of Quranic behest and the traditions of Holy Prophet (p.b..u.h.) but neither vires of said S.7 had been challenged nor matter raised in case pertained to all kinds of "Talaqs"-- Matter, in the present case, pertained to "Talaq" obtained by wife through Court decree in shape of Khula".
NLR 2004 SD 190. Shoukat Ali & another V/S The State (FSC).
S.10 Zina Ord. S.7(I) Muslim F.L.Ord.1961, Talaq pronounced by husband in accordance with requirements of Shariah without following the procedure laid down in S.7 would be valid pronouncement of Talaq. Failure to follow procedure laid down in S.7 may entail punishment but would not invalidate Talaq which is conscious and willful pronouncement of Talaq with intention to release wife from marriage bond. CONVICTION SET-ASIDE.
PLD 2004 Lahore 77.Mst. Nazir Fatima Nazim Union Council
S.5 & Schedule Family Courts Act 1964. One of the conditions of the marriage between parties was that husband had delegated the right do divorce wife and try to that effect was made in column No.18 of Nikahnama. Wife in exercise of said right pronounced divorce upon herslef for her husband and a notice was sent to Nazim Union Council concerned. Nazim had intimated wife that husband being not ready to pronounce divorce, wife could approach the court as he could not grant Khula and Nazim sent the case to the Family Court. Nazim was oblivious of legal position as right of divorce could be lawfully delegated by husband to wife and that had happened in the present case and notice was sent by wife in compliance with the terms of S. 7 & 8 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Ninety days prescribed period having expired after receipt of notice issued by wife and reconciliation being not possible between the parties, law as prescribed in S.7(3) & 8 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 would have in course. Nazim would issue requisite document regarding receipt of notice and failure of reconciliation within prescribed time.
PLD 2004 Lahore 316. Mian Arif Mehmood V/S Mst. Tanvir Fatima & another
S.7(3) & (5) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. Divorce pronounced by the husband upon the wife having not been revoked, had become effective after the expiry of ninety days from the date of receipt of notice by the Nazim/Chairman Arbitration Council in view of S.7(3). PETITION PARTLY ALLOWED.
PLJ 2008 Sh.C.(AJK) 55. Bilal Hamza Abbasi V/S Wazir Muhammad & another
Specific mode for dissolution of marriage --- Divorce pronounced on telephonic call. Islam does not prescribe any specific mode for dissolution of marriage. It is an overt act on the part of husband which could indicate a clear intention to annul the marriage to operate as a divorce. No particular form of words is prescribed for affecting a talaq. If the words of Talaq are clear express and very well understood as implying divorce, no proof of intention is required. It is also not necessary that divorce should be pronounced in the presence of wife or even addressed to her. Witness for the respondent told him that appellant tried to hand over the divorce deed to him but he refused to receive the same. Held: Appellant had pronounced talaq through telephonic call by producing cogent, sufficient and reliable evidence. No any non-reading or misreading of the evidence on the part of Family Court. APPEAL DISMISSED.
2009 MLD 1478. Ambreen Afshan V/S Mrs. Idrees Qazu (Lahore)
S.7 Muslim Family Laws Ord. 1961. Divorce--Effectiveness---Husband administered the divorce and notified the same to Chairman of Arbitration/Union Council whereupon certain proceedings were taken and ultimately a certificate for the effectiveness of divorce was issued through the impugned order. Wife was well aware of the fact that husband had pronounced divorce to her for which consequential proceedings before the Arbitration/Union Council had also been taken. Father of the wife had been pursuing the matter before Arbitration Council. Case of the wife who had challenged effectiveness of the divorce was that the submission of divorce deed with a notice before the Arbitration Council could not ipso facto, operate and result into the dissolution of marriage. In the present case it could not be disputed that the period much beyond 90 days had expired from the date of notice of the divorce when impugned certificate of its effectiveness was issued, in the circumstances, especially keeping in view all the relevant facts of service of notice on the Chairman Union Council, the initiation of the proceedings by the Arbitration Council, the repeated appearance of father of the wife who was holding a power of attorney on her behalf in those proceedings and actual knowledge of the wife about the pendency and fact of those proceedings, divorce and its pronouncement had become effective. Failure to send a notice to the Chairman of the Arbitration Council would not render the divorce in-effective in Shariah. Effect of pronouncement of divorce in Shariah would not justify interference with impugned order nor would warrant exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioner/wife under Art.199 of the Constitution.
0 comments:
Post a Comment