| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 6624 2011 SLD 6624 2011 PCRLJ 1391 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-166 of 2010, decided on 3rd August, 2010.Date of hearing: 3rd August, 2010.
Before Salman Hamid, J
Ali Nawaz Ghanghro for Applicant. Ali Raza Pathan, State Counsel. Ghulam Sagheer Baloch for Parents of Applicant.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-166 of 2010, decided on 3rd August, 2010.Date of hearing: 3rd August, 2010.
Before Salman Hamid, J
Ali Nawaz Ghanghro for Applicant. Ali Raza Pathan, State Counsel. Ghulam Sagheer Baloch for Parents of Applicant.
Mst. NASEEM---Applicant
VS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DARUL AMAN, LARKANA and 2 others---Respondents
Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961
Section: 6
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 561-A
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 31,35
(a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----S. 6---Polygamy---Nature and scope---Provisions of S. 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, are reformative and corrective in nature and for measures for prevention of injustice to the existing wife or wives---Arbitration Council is not empowered to make an unlawful thing declared as lawful by Islam---Nevertheless, polygamy in Islam is no more or no less than that of a permissible act and has never been considered a command and therefore, like any other matter made lawful in principle, may become forbidden if it involves unlawful things or leads to unlawful consequences such as injustice. Allah Rakha and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2000 FSC 1 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---S. 561-A---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.6---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 31 & 35---Petitioner had sought her release from Darul Aman and permission to get married and reside with the respondent, who already had two wives---Function of Arbitration Council under S. 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, was reformative and corrective in nature---Petitioner could not be left at the mercy of Darul Aman indefinitely, and she was not at all agreeable to go back to her parents---First wife of the respondent had filed her affidavit regarding having no objection about the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner---Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent after completion of her Iddat period of Khula granted to her by Family Court, could in a way minimize the injustice in her life and assure that she would not be dragged into leading an immoral life, and her getting married to an already married person would not be seen as violation of any morality---Article 31 of the Constitution had provided that Muslims were enabled to live their lives in accordance with the fundamental concepts of Islam and under Article 35 thereof State was required to protect institution of marriage---Since the petitioner had clearly expressed her unwillingness to go back to her parents, they might not be. present at the time of her Nikah with the respondent--High Court, therefore, in…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492