1990 PLP 612 (SCMR)
FAHEEM‑UD‑DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus SABEEHA BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 612 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAHEEM‑UD‑DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus SABEEHA BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 612 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 612 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 612 (SCMR) (FAHEEM‑UD‑DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus SABEEHA BEGUM and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 3‑10‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.223‑Q of 1989). ‑‑‑S.6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Contention that second wife had no locus standi to File a complaint for alleged offence of polygamy by husband as she was not an aggrieved person within meaning of S.6 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, because said provision was intended for protection of rights of first wife rather than those of subsequent wife‑‑‑Question, held, was one of first impression and required further consideration‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1989. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J: ‑‑The petitioner, who was already a married person, entered into a second marriage but without obtaining the permission from the Arbitration Council of the Local Council concerned. Sometime later, the second wife filed a complaint before the Ilaqa Magistrate alleging that the petitioner had not only defrauded her, by not disclosing that he was an already married person, but had also committed an offence under section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 by marrying again without the permission of the Arbitration Council. The Ilaqa Magistrate finding prima facie that an offence under section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 had been committed by the accused ordered that he be summoned to stand trial. The petitioner filed a petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings before the Ilaqa Magistrate but the said petition was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. In support of this petition, it is inter alia contended that the second wife has no locus standi to file a complaint for the alleged offence by the husband of polygamy inasmuch as she is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance because the said provision is intended for the protection of the rights of the first wife rather than that of the subsequent wife. The question arising is one of first impression and requires further consideration. Leave granted. Further proceedings before the trial Magistrate shall remain suspended meanwhile. But the appeal shall be made ready expeditiously and put up for hearing at a very early date. N.H.Q./F‑162/S Leave granted.