Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 3109 2024 SLD 3109 2024 MLD 786
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.84511 of 2023, decided on 21st December, 2023.
Present: Raheel Kamran, J
A.W. Chaddha for Petitioner.

Mst. SIDRA-TUL-MUNTAHA----Petitioner

VS

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE and others----Respondents

Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Section: 6

(a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----S.6---Polygamy---Contracting second Nikah during subsistence of marriage---Private complaint filed by first/existing wife---Ingredients of the alleged offence, non- existence of---Unlawful act and criminal intent---First/existing wife filed private complaint not only against her husband but also against second wife, witnesses of Nikah, Nikah Reciter, Registrar and secretary Union Council---Family Court after recording cursory evidence of the complainant, summoned the accused /husband and dismissed the complaint to the extent of remaining accused persons (second wife, witnesses of Nikah, Nikah Reciter, and secretary/registrar Union Council)---Appellate Court dismissed the criminal revision preferred by the complainant against the order of the Family Court---Plea of the petitioner (first wife/complainant) was that that sufficient evidence in the shape of second Nikahnama was available to proceed against the remaining respondents accused of facilitating the offence---Validity---Complaint filed against any accused must state the facts disclosing existence of both the unlawful act and the criminal intent so that the Court may be satisfied regarding existence of every ingredient of the alleged offence---Court is not required to casually accept the written complaint until it has satisfied itself that prima facie the case has been made out against the persons who have been accused of the criminal offence---In order to arrive at just evaluation, the Court ordinarily examines the complainant and the witnesses as cursory evidence---Purpose behind that practice is to protect the public from false and frivolous complaints filed against them in criminal Courts---Complaint in the present case did not disclose commission of any offence, much less the offence prescribed under S. 6(5) of the Ordinance 1961 allegedly committed by any of the respondents except the husband who, being accused of contracting another marriage without permission of Arbitration Council, had been lawfully summoned by the Court of competent jurisdiction---Petitioner had not been able to point out what offence, if any, disclosed in the complaint filed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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