Section 12(2) of C.P.C. can be invoked to challenge the judgment and decree passed by a Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1964.
C.P.L.A.1737-L/2020
Fozia Mazhar v. Additional District Judge, Jhang, etc Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 26-04-2024.
S.18---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Recovery of dowry articles---Evidence through attorney ---Principle---Wife objected to recording of evidence of husband through attorney ---Validity---If attorney was well conversant with all facts of case, there was no legal bar in West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964, whereby any of the parties could be deprived from appointing an attorney , if the party was not available due to reason beyond his control---Legislature enacted provisions of S.18 in West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964, keeping in view only the matters relating to dissolution of marriage, dower, maintenance, restitution of conjugal rights and custody of children---Provisions of S.18 of West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964, were meant for such category of cases where personal appearance of spouses was essential enabling court to apprise itself of the real controversy/differences between the parties and for such purpose a mandatory provision of reconciliation was also included in West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964---Recovery of dowry articles was a civil liability which was included in Schedule of West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964---Provisions of S.18 of West Pakistan family Courts Act, 1964, were just enabling provisions and husband could not be deprived to defend the suit against him through his attorney ---High court declined to interfere in concurrent orders passed by both the courts below, whereby application filed by wife was dismissed---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2012 PLD 408 LAHORE
Mst. RUQAYYA BIBI
Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHUSHAB
PLJ 2024 Lahore (Note) 43
Present: Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J.
DAWOOD AHMAD--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 231109 of 2018, heard on 22.12.2023.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----O.VII R. 11--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, (VIII of 1961), S. 7--Divorced--Condition to payment of specific penalty in lieu of divorce--Unconvenanted right--Validity of condition--The petitioner had an uncovenanted right to pronounce divorce if so desire and placing of clog in said right, was against principles of Islamic Law-- The decisions of Courts below suffered from mis-application of law, as such, same were not sustainable in eyes of law and were liable to be set-aside and High Court was well within jurisdiction to reversed illegal and perverse concurrent findings.
[Para 5 & 7] B & D
2015 SCMR 1708, PLD 2011 SC 260, 2022 CLC 24, UBR (1915) 11, 53, 2021 CLC 1512 ref. 2016 SCMR 24, 2002 SCMR 38.
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)--
----S. 7--Talaq--A husband is authorized or is at liberty to pronounce Talaq to his wife. [Para 5] A
2022 CLC 729 ref.
Duty of Court--
----It was duty of Court firstly to decide maintainability of suit as per law and if suit is not maintainable then proceedings of suit shall be set at rest infinitum as it is settled law that such like cases should be burried in inception to save precious time of Courts and public.
[Para 6] C
2002 SCMR 338 & 2016 SCMR 24 ref.
Mr. Shahid Mahmood Minhas, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Tariq Malik, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 22.12.2023.
Judgment
Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 2 /plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of 300-tolas gold or in alternate the amount of the same against the petitioner/defendant contending therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 21.10.2001. Out of this wedlock, minor namely Ibrahim was born who is in the custody of Respondent No. 2. At the time of marriage dower was fixed
Rs. 10,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 20,000/-was paid at the time of marriage and Rs. 9,80,000/-is still payable and the pocket money was also fixed Rs. 30,000/-per month. Petitioner/ defendant divorced the plaintiff on 30.07.2011 and as per clause 19 of Nikahnama plaintiff prayed for recovery of 300-tolas gold or in alternate its price.
Petitioner/defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and raised many objections and preliminary Objection No. 4 was qua rejection of the plaint being barred by law, Clause No. 19 of the Nikah Nama is void condition and suit is not maintainable. Petitioner also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint. The said application was contested by Respondent No. 2/ plaintiff which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 20.07.2017. Against the said order, the petitioner filed revision petition which was dismissed by the revisional Court vide order dated 03.05.2018. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 19 of Nikah Nama is against the injunctions of Islam as no condition can be imposed in the Nikah Nama regarding pronouncement of divorce. Moreover, Respondent No. 2/plaintiff filed suit for recovery only on the basis of Column No. 19 of Nikah Nama whereas imposition of condition is illegal thus no proceedings can be initiated in this regard. Petitioner filed an application for rejection of plaint as the suit was barred by law and also to save the precious time of the Court as the further proceedings of the said suit is tantamounted abuse process of law.
3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the matter should be decided after recording of evidence, as such both orders were rightly passed.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Admittedly, marriage of the parties was solemnized on 21.10.2001. In column No. 19 of the Nikah Nama it is written as under:
19۔ شوھر طلاق کا حق استعمال کرنے سے پہلے (300) تین سو تولہ سونا اپنی بیوی کو ادا کرنے کا پابند ہو گا۔
The legality and validity of the above condition is in controversy between the parties. As per contents of the plaint, Respondent No. 2 demanded 300-tolas gold as mentioned in Clause 19 of the Nikah Nama in lieu of divorce given by the petitioner. Under Section 7 of The Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, a husband is authorized or is at liberty to pronounce Talaq to his wife. In the above provision of law, it is nowhere mentioned that such power/right of a husband regarding pronouncing of Talaq to his wife can be stipulated with the condition to pay a specific penalty or amount in shape of gold. As per Section 7 of the Ordinance ibid the petitioner has an uncovenanted right to pronounce divorce if so desire and placing of clog in the said right, is against the principles of Islamic Law. This question has already been resolved by this Court[1] by holding that “The respondent/plaintiff has contended that at the time of registration of Nikah, it was mentioned in the Clause 19 that in case the petitioner/defendant divorces the respondent/plaintiff, he will pay an amount of Rs. 500,000/. With regard to imposition of clog on the right of a husband qua pronouncing divorce, Allah Almighty in Holy Qur’an has delegated uncovenanted powers to the husband to pronounce Talaq to his wife in order to avoid any transgression of Islamic bounds. In this regard I seek guidance from Ayat Nos. 227-228 of Surah Al-Baqarah, which is as under:
227. But if their intention is firm for divorce, Allah heareth-And knoweth all things. 228. Divorced women Shall wait concerning themselves For three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them To hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, If they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands Have the better right To take them back In that period, if They wish for reconciliation And women shall have rights Similar to the rights Against them according To what is equitable, But men have a degree (Of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali) | اور اگر ارادہ کر لیں طلاق کاتو بیشک اللہ ہر بات سننے والاسب کچھ جاننے والا ہے۔ اور طلاق یافتہ عورتیں روکے رکھیں اپنے آپ کو تین حیض تک۔ اور نہیں جائز ہے ان کے لئے یہ کہ چھپائیں وہ اس کو جو کچھ پیدا کیا ہے اللہ نے ان کے رحم میں اگر وہ ایمان رکھتی ہیں اللہ پر اور آخرت کے دن پر۔ اور ان کے خاوند زیادہ حقدار ہیں انہیں لوٹا لینے کے (اپنی زوجیت میں اس (مدت ( میں اگر وہ چاہیں صلح کرنا۔ اور عورتوں کے بھی حقوق ہیں ویسے ہی جسے ان پرہیں (مردوں کے) دستور کے مطابق البتہ مردوں کو عورتوں پر ایک درجہ حاصل ہے۔ اور اللہ غالب ہے بڑی حکمت والا ہے۔ اردو ترجمہ ) مرتبہ : مولانا سید شبیر احمد |
Further in 01st Ayat of Surah At-Talaq, Allah Almighty says as under:
O Prophet! When ye Do divorce women, Divorce them at their Prescribed periods, And count (accurately) Their prescribed periods: And fear Allah Your Lord: And turn them not out Of their houses, nor shall They (themselves) leave. Except in case they are Guilty of some open lewdness. Those are limits Set by Allah: and any who trans gresses the limits Of Allah, does verily Wrong his (own soul: Thou knowest not if Perchance Allah will Bring about thereafter Some new situation. (translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali) | اے نبی !جب طلاق دو تم عورتوں کو تو طلاق دو تم انہیں اس طرح کہ وہ عدت شروع کر سکیں اور ٹھیک ٹھیک شمار کرو عدت (کےزمانہ ) کا۔ اور ڈرو اللہ سے جو تمہارا رب ہے۔ اور نہ نکالو تم انہیں انکے گھروں سے اور نہ وہ خود نکلیں الا یہ کہ ارتکاب کریں وہ کسی کھلی بدکاری کا۔ اور یہ اللہ کی (مقرر کر دہ) حدیں ہیں۔ اور جو تجاوز کرے گا اللہ کی مقرر کردہ حدود سے تو در حقیقت وہ ظلم کرے گا اپنی ہی جان پر۔ نہیں جانتے تم شاید کہ اللہ پیدا کر دے اس کے بعد بھی (موافقت کی) کوئی صورت اردو ترجمہ ) مرتبہ : مولانا سید شبیر احمد |
Further guidance in this regard can be taken from the Sunnah of Holy Prophet from Hadith No. 235 of Bukhari Sharif, which reads as under:-
اسماعیل بن عبد اللہ مالک، نافع، عبد اللہ بن عمر سے روایت کرتے ہیں کہ انہوں نے اپنی بیوی کو رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے عہد میں بحالت حیض طلاق دیدی حضرت عمررضی اللہ تعالی عنہ نے نبی ﷺ سے اس کے متعلق پوچھا، تو آپ نے فرمایا کہ اس کو رجوع کرنے کا حکم دو پھر وہ اس کو روکے رکھے، یہاں تک کہ پاک ہو جائے پھر حیض آئے پھر پاک ہو جائے پھر اگر چاہے تو اس کے بعد اپنے پاس رہنے دے، اور اگر چاہے تو صحبت کرنے سے پہلے طلاق دے یہی وہ عدت ہے جس کے لئے عورتوں کو طلاق دیئے جانے کا حکم اللہ تعالیٰ نے دیا ہے۔
Section 105 Chapter XII of the Code of Muslim Personal Law (written by Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rahman, Ex-Judge of Sindh High Court, Volume 1) the Delegation of right of Divorce (Tafwid at-Talaq) is described which is reproduced as under:
Delegation of the right of divorce: It is lawful for the husband to delegate to the wife the right of effecting divorce. In that event, however, his own right of effecting divorce shall not lapse
Even otherwise, Section 7 (1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 deals with Talaq, which is reproduced as under:
“S. 7 ‘Talaq. (1) Any man who wishes to divorce his wife shall, as soon as may be after the pronouncement of talaq in any form whatsoever, give the Chairman notice in writing of his having done so, and shall supply a copy thereof to the wife.”
5. From the perusal of afore-mentioned glorious references of Holy Quran and Sunnah as well as provisions of Section 105 of the Code of Muslim Personal Law written by Dr. Tanzeel-ur-Rehman and Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, a husband has an absolute right to divorce his wife and in this regard no condition is described in the Sharia as well as in the codified law. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Muhammad Bashir Ali Siddiqui vs. Mst. Sarwar Jahan Begum & Another (2008 SCMR 186) has also declared that the condition/restriction on the right of a husband to divorce his wife, is illegal. The condition if any imposed in the Nikahnama for the award of damages on account of alleged unjustified divorce is against the basic principle of Islamic Law. The husband has a right to divorce his wife from his free will and no condition can be imposed in this regard Reliance can also be placed on the cases titled as Mst. Zeenat Bibi vs. Muhammad Hayat & 2 others (2012 CLC 837) & Muhammad Asif vs. Mst. Nazia Riasat & 2 others (2018 CLC 1844).”
In a similar case, a lady filed suit for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/-on the basis of an entry in the Nikah Nama as well as also on the basis of agreement between the parties that in case of divorce, the husband shall pay rupees one million (Rs.10,00,000/-) to her. The Family Court decreed the suit and said judgment was upheld by this Court, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal[2] and set aside the judgments of the lower fora holding the power of a husband to pronounce divorce as un-stipulated. This Court has also held in a case[3] that any condition contained in Nikahnama against the principles of Islam or Shariah is not binding upon the parties even if it has been made with the consent of the parties. In Hasan Chanea’s case[4] it was also held that a husband has an absolute right/power to divorce his wife and no condition can be imposed on exercising such right. Further reliance is made to Rukhsana Ambreen’s case.[5] Mr. Aziz Ahmad in Para No. 238 of his great book “Islamic Law in Theory and Practice” [foreword by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, former Chief Justice of West Pakistan] has also observed that a Muslim who is a major and has a sound mind may divorce his wife under the Muslim Law at any time without assigning any reason.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has raised objection that the application for rejection of plaint is not maintainable, as the provisions of, CPC are not applicable in family matters, thus the suit cannot be dismissed under above provisions rather the proceedings of the Family Courts are governed by the general principle of equity, justice and fair-play, suffice it to say that it is the duty of the Court firstly to decide the maintainability of the suit as per law and if suit is not maintainable then the proceedings of suit shall be set at rest infinitum as it is settled law that such like cases should be burried in the inception to save the precious time of the Courts and public.[6] As such the objection of learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 is without any force and same is hereby repelled.
7. As discussed above, the decisions of the Courts below suffer from mis-application of law, as such, the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set-aside and this Court is well within jurisdiction to reverse the illegal and perverse concurrent findings. [7]
8. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore and order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore are hereby set aside and application filed by the petitioner/defendant for rejection of plaint of respondent/plaintiff is accepted. Consequently, the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff is hereby rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. No order as to costs.
(Y.A.) Petition allowed
[1]. Muhammad Sajjad vs. Additional District Judge, Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan 2 Others (2022 CLC 729).
[2]. Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah vs. Mst. Saba Imtiaz & Others (PLD 2011 SC 260).
[3]. Mujahid Kamran vs. Mst. Saira Aziz & 2 Others (2022 CLC 24).
[4]. Hasan Chanea vs. Mi Sin (U.B.R (1915), II, 53.
[5]. Rukhsana Ambreen vs. District & Sessions Judge, Khushab and 2 others (2021 CLC 1512).
[6]. S.M.Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through Legal Heira V’s. Malik Hassan Ali Khan (Moin) through Legal Heirs (2002 SCMR 338) and Haji Farman Ullah v. Latif-ur-Rehman 2015 SCMR 1708).
[7]. Nazim-ud-Din & Others Va. Sheikh Zia-ul-Qamar & Others (2016 SCMR 24).
2024 S C M R 634
Wife received only part of the gold ornaments as per the compromise verdict given by the arbitrators and it was specifically provided therein that she could demand the remaining tolas of gold at any time from the husband---Arbitration agreement and verdict nowhere stated that the wife could not agitate her grievance again in case of failure, neglect or refusal of the husband to act in terms of the said agreement---Object of the arbitration was to bring about a compromise between the parties and not to deprive the wife of her lawful right which was granted to her by the family court ---Wife had no choice but to knock at the door of the family court ---decree passed against the husband was still intact and executable---Compromise could not be construed as rendering the decree itself ineffective and the wife had never relinquished her entire claim against the husband---No legal impediment existed to file a second execution petition in case of withdrawal of execution petition from the Executing court if the decree had not been satisfied---Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Ss. 22-A & 22-B- Art. 199-Constitutional petition-Divorce through telephone or sms. Ex-husband of petitioner had allegedly Divorced her orally through telephone and sms. Petitioner contracted second marriage. Respondent/uncle of ex-husband moved application before Justice of Peace alleging that petitioner had married another man during subsistence of her marriage. Justice of Peace issued directions to Station House officer to register case against petitioner-Validity---Ex-husband of petitioner was neither impleaded as a party nor came forward before the court for his impleadment---Dowry articles of petitioner were returned to her on the order of the Family Court, which showed acceptance of separation-Procedure for pronouncing Divorce had been prescribed by the legislature in its best wisdom in order to ensure the sanctity of institution of marriage recognizing Divorce as a last option-Question was as to what would become of society if Divorces were allowed to take effect merely on basis of sms-Prerequisite for pronouncing a Divorce was peace of mind, and the purpose and objective of such act should be made known to the witnesses present at the spot by the husband-Wording of the sms sent by the ex-husband, in the present case, did not categorically mention the said pre-requisites-Constitutional petition was disposed of with the observation that factum of Divorce would be properly addressed and adjudicated upon by the Family Court in the suit for restoration of conjugal rights filed by ex-husband.
* Once the gift/hiba itself was declared to be unlawful, any further transaction on the basis of the said gift would only be a nullity in the eye of law for that the wife i.e. donee of the gift did not have legal title to the house to sell the same to the petitioner---Both gift as well as the purported sale in favour of the petitioner were nothing but sham transactions and its purpose was to ensure that the decree for maintenance was not satisfied---decree was for the maintenance of the daughter, but unfortunately, the father in sheer disregard of his parental obligation had indulged in making unlawful transactions---court while exercising parental jurisdiction could not just sit and be a spectator in such unholy and unlawful conduct of the father---Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan family court s Act, 1964, empowered the family court to execute its own decree for payment of money by adopting modes provided for recovery of arrears of land revenue (including selling the immovable property of the defaulter)---Order of attachment of the house of the father passed by the family court in execution of the decree passed by it, was in accordance with law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
i) Is it permissible for an individual to marry two real sisters concurrently?
