Monday, 14 November 2016

Wife is not competent to file complaint against her husband for polygamy

Wife is not competent to file complaint against her husband for polygamy (Mujjan Ali Panhwar)
----S.6---West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 21---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Polygamy---Quashing of proceedings, application for---Respondent/ complainant wife in her complaint had alleged that applicant/husband had contracted second marriage without her prior permission and consent---Wife had also alleged that husband had not even filed any application to the Nazim Union Council for obtaining permission of Arbitration Council---Complaint was returned by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, with the direction to file same before the Union Council concerned---Appellate Court however, set aside order of the Trial Court and remanded the' complaint with the directions to record the statement of wife---Husband who filed application for quashing of the proceedings had contended that provisions of S.6 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 did not contemplate an action on behalf of private person, which could only be initiated on behalf of the Union Council---Validity---As to what had been provided under the law, had to be followed in the same manner and an aggrieved party could avail normal. remedies by approaching the Trial Court---Notwithstanding, it was not the intention of lawmakers that an aggrieved party under S.6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 should approach the court of law for redress, except that Union Council would have the jurisdiction over the subject in the event of Polygamy as said section did not contemplate delegation of authority to the private person for initiating an action on behalf of the Union Council---In the present case, proceedings initiated by the Trial Court in the complaint of wife, were found to be devoid of lawful authority, it would be an exercise in futile to allow the private complaint to linger on which would tantamount to be patent illegality and flagrant abuse of process of law---Bar existed in entertaining a private complaint directly filed by the wife against the husband, which would amount to violation of the principles of justice, and required interference for exercise of power of quashing the proceedings--Impugned order was set aside and proceedings pending before the Trial Court were directed to be quashed.
Subadar Malik Sher Muhammad v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ Qeutta 1510; Zakir Hussain Siddiqui v. Mst. Nazim Bano and others 1989 CLC Kar. 1062; Faheemuddin v. Sabeeha Begum PLD 1991 SC 1074 and Kausar Perveen v. The State 2004 YLR 2242 ref.
2010 M L D 470
[Karachi]
Before Mrs. Qaiser Iqbal, J
ATIQ-UR-REHMAN---Applicant
Versus
Mst. SADIA and another---Respondents.

No comments:

Post a Comment