SHAHROZ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss — 2026 PLD 206 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.

SHAHROZ VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss.3(9), 10, 11 & 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.10-A, 14, 20 & 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, Rr.1 & 6---Constitutional petition---Judicial separation/dissolution of marriage between Christian spouses---Scope and evidentiary discipline---Petitioner contracted Christian marriage and sought dissolution---Concurrent judgments dismissing petitioner's petition for failing to prove allegation of adultery, challenge to---Legality---Courts below failing to evaluate other statutory grounds such as cruelty and desertion---Effect---Brief facts of the matter were that the petitioner/husband and respondent No.3/wife, both Christians by faith, contracted marriage; the petitioner initially filed a petition for dissolution/judicial separation under the (Christian) Divorce Act, 1869 before the Civil Court, which was dismissed and the appeal thereagainst was later withdrawn with permission to file afresh; he subsequently instituted a fresh petition under Ss. 7 & 10 of the Act, 1869 which was dismissed and the dismissal was maintained by the District Court; aggrieved, the petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below---Pivotal questions for determination were as to "whether the allegations of adultery and cruelty had been adjudicated after strict compliance with the evidentiary discipline required under the C.P.C. read with Ss. 10 & 12 of the Act, 1869?"; and "whether the plea of desertion was legally available on the facts and properly examined by the Courts below?"---Held: Impugned judgments were passed without fully considering the evidence, which amounted to non-compliance of the requirements of O.XX, Rr. 1 & 6 of the C.P.C.---To discuss or elaborate reliance upon an allegation of adultery in the absence of cogent and legally admissible evidence was not only contrary to the procedural mandate of the C.P.C. and the statutory safeguards of the Act, 1869 but also implicated the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Art.14 of the Constitution---Since it was admitted that the parties had been living apart, it became apparent that the constituent elements of desertion were not examined by the Courts below while framing issues---The matter therefore had to be remanded for proper framing of issues---The right of Christian citizens to seek dissolution or judicial separation through Civil Courts was a manifestation of their freedom to profess, practice and manage matters arising out of their religious law---In the present case, the courts below failed to examine the petitioner's claim in the light of this constitutional mandate, as neither the ground of cruelty nor the admitted state of separation was analyzed within the statutory framework of Ss. 10 & 22 of the Act, 1869---Such omission constituted non-compliance of the procedural discipline of law and also infringed the petitioner's right to fair trial and due process secured under Art.10-A, read with Art.4 of the Constitution---Concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below were set aside---Matter was remanded to Trail Court for fresh adjudication---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

SHAHROZ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss — 2026 PLD 206 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD