BUSHRA HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL, ISLAMABAD S — 2026 CLC 1 ISLAMABAD

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

BUSHRA HUSSAIN VS CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL, ISLAMABAD S. 7(1)(a) [as amended by Muslim Family Laws (Second Amendment) Act (XXIX of 2021)]---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.17(1)--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Issuance of certificate of effectiveness of divorce (Certificate)---Fiqah-e-Jafria---Non-fulfillment of requirements of pronouncement of seeghajaat in presence of 02 Muslim witnesses for pronouncement of divorce---Resumption of relationship as husband and wife after compromise between the parties before the Family Court in a suit for recovery of maintenance instituted by the petitioner/wife---Petitioner filed application for cancellation of certificate on the ground that the certificate issued by the Chairman Arbitration Council was illegal, as the parties had resumed their relationship---Validity---Person belonging to Fiqah-e-Jafria can voluntarily with his own free will pronounce Talaq himself or through duly authorized attorney/Vakeel, uttering literal Arabic words seeghajaat in the physical presence of at least two witnesses, qualifying the requirement of Sub-Clause (1) of Art. 17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and without following the said procedure of proviso, the Talaq effectiveness certificate could not be issued---Literal Arabic pronouncement of required seeghajaat had not been pronounced even on the third Talaq, thus, as per Fiqah-e-Jafria, the Talaq was not effective---Certificate was issued without verifying the pronouncement of seeghajaat, which was amandatory requirement in cases where parties belonged to the Fiqah-e-Jaferia---Word "may" permits the Court to consider it in sense of "shall" or "must"---If the "may" used in proviso to S. 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, (Ordinance) is not made "mandatory" it would frustrate the entire intent of the proviso added by Second Amendment of 2021 in the Ordinance, thus, the word "may" is to be considered with reference to the whole text and the legislature has used the word "may" in the proviso which is an exception of a general rule in order to protect the rights of those parties, who belong to Fiqah-e-Jafria---High Court did not agree with the contention that word "may" should not be considered as acompulsion with the meaning of "must", thus, High Court issued aclear directive, placing a serious duty and obligation upon the Chairman of the Arbitration Council, particularly in cases governed by Fiqah-e-Jafria, to adhere to the principles ensuring the effectiveness of divorce, and to adopt the procedure as future guidelines devised by High Court---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

BUSHRA HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL, ISLAMABAD S — 2026 CLC 1 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC