Mst. SIDRA-TUL-MUNTAHA vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE S — 2024 MLD 786 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. SIDRA-TUL-MUNTAHA VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE S.6---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109---Polygamy---Contracting second Nikah during subsistence of marriage---Private complaint filed by first/existing wife---Abetment---Scope---Inchoate offence---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 being accused of facilitating the offence---Validity---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 ('the Ordinance, 1961') is a special statute; in the absence of any specific provision in the Ordinance, 1961 permitting applicability of the Pakistan Penal Code, provisions such as S. 109 of the P.P.C. for the offence of abetment cannot be read into and made applicable to broaden scope of the offence prescribed under S.6(5) of the Ordinance, 1961---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 by the petitioner, was prima facie made out against other respondents---No illegality or jurisdictional error had been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 786 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. SIDRA-TUL-MUNTAHA VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE 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---Punishment or penalty---Inchoate offence---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---Provisions of S.6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 ('the Ordinance 1961') manifest that S. 6 neither makes the registration of another marriage contracted without permission of the Arbitration Council an offence nor the Ordinance prescribes any inchoate offence in relation to polygamy such as attempt, solicitation or conspiracy---Section 6 of the Ordinance 1961 does not prescribe any punishment or penalty against anyone other than the husband who contracts another marriage without permission of the Arbitration Council concerned---Enactments prescribing an offence are to be construed strictly and the words used therein cannot be extended by construction---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 by the petitioner, was prima facie made out against other respondents---No illegality or jurisdictional error had been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 786 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Mst. SIDRA-TUL-MUNTAHA VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE 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 by the petitioner, was prima facie made out against other respondents---No illegality or jurisdictional error had been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Mst. SIDRA-TUL-MUNTAHA vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE S — 2024 MLD 786 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD