P L D 1967 Karachi 165 (PLP)

A. S. FARUQUI, J.‑This petition under Article 98 of the Con stitution challenges the validity of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, Mr. M. A. Sadiq, C. S. P. on 18‑6‑64, whereby he ordered that "the Chairman of the Town Committee, Khairpur Nathan Shah should immediately collect the relevant Nikah‑Nama forms and make correction in the amount of Hak Mahar as Rs. 2,000 instead of Rs. 20,000."

2. The facts are these : The petitioner Mst. Hanifa was married to the respondent No. 3 Ali Anwer on 18‑10‑62 at Khairpur Nathan Shah; District Dadu. According to her the dower amount was fined at Rs. 20,

000. It appears that the husband Ali Anwer moved the authorities alleging that the dower which in fact had been fixed was Rs. 2,000 and that the Registrar of Nikah in collusion with the wife's party has increased it to Rs. 20,000 by interpolating the entry in the register. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner ordered the Assistant Director of Basic Democracies to hold an inquiry and on his report he passed the order, the operative part of which has been reproduced above. Mst. Hanifa then moved this Court for the quashing of the order and the short contention raised before us by her learned counsel is that this order was without jurisdiction in so far as the Deputy Commissioner had no power to make such an order.

3. When this petition first came before us we called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner to inform this Court as to under what powers he had passed the impugned order. A report was received in which the Deputy Commissioner referred to Articles 74, 75 and 76 of the Basic Democracies Order. This is what he said: "The order was passed under general executive powers as Deputy Commissioner and also under Articles 74, 75 and 76, Chapter II of Part V of the order, so far as straightening out the record and punishing the Nikah Registrar was concerned. This was deemed to be just legal and expedient Order to be passed under the circumstances with a view to avoid litigation and further bad blood between the parties." When this report was received this petition was admitted for regular hearing and notice was issued to the respondents including the Deputy Commissioner and the Chairman, Town Committee. These, however, have not put is appearance but we have heard Mr. Khoja, Bar‑at‑Law on behalf of the husband Ali Anwer. He has in substance supported the report of the Deputy commissioner upon the question of his jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

4. We have examined the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance and the rules framed thereunder and also the Basic Democracies Order, and we have been unable to find any authority in the Deputy Commissioner to pass the order of the kind which he has done in this case. Article 74 of the Basic Democracies Order gives power to the controlling authority over the activities of the Local Council. The Deputy Commis sioner in the present case would be the controlling authority. Then Article 75 empowers him to give directions to any Local Council or any person or authority responsible thereto to take such action as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Basic Democracies Order. Article 76 empowers the Government to interfere into the affairs of the Local Council: We are completely at a loss to see how any of these Articles are relevant for the purposes of the question which we are called upon to answer. It is nobody's case that the Local Council has done any wrong. The allegation is that the interpolation in the Nikah Register had been done by the Registrar. If that is so, the rules provide for action against the Registrar. This Registrar is appointed by the Union Council, who grants to him a licence in that regard. This licence is revocable if the Registrar does not perform his functions as required by the rules. Then sub‑rule (4) of rule 7 of the Muslim Family Laws. Ordinance provides that "if any person to whom a licence has been granted under this rule contravenes any of the conditions of such licence, he shall be, punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both." It is, therefore, plain that if the Registrar acts in contravention of the rules the Union Council has the power to revoke his licence and also to prosecute him. There is, however, no power given to the Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as the controlling authority to order the correction of any entry into the Nikah Register. It must be remembered that it is not merely the Registrar and the Union Council which are concerned with the entry of the register; there are also the parties to the marriage and it is they who are most concerned with the entry and the contents thereof. It is the wife in the present case who asserts that her dower, in fact, was fixed at Rs. 20,000 who stands to lose by the proposed correction or amendment of the amount of the Nikah. Her right cannot be determined or adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner, or for that matter the Union Council. The Legislatures in their wisdom have not given such powers. Such powers, if given, might be abused. That power of determination upon a dispute as to what was the amount agreed between the parties and entered into the register must rest in the Civil Court in the absence of any provision in that regard in the Ordinance. We regret to note that the learned Deputy Commissioner, even when his attention was drawn to the petition and a report was called, insisted upon his having the powers to pass the order which he did. As we have shown he had plainly no such powers.

5. We accordingly allow this petition and quash the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, in pursuance of which the correction was made in the Nikah Register by the respondent No. 2, the Chairman. Since the order was‑ passed by the respondent No. 1 and the correction was made by the Chairman, respondent No. 2, and they have not appeared to oppose the petition we will leave the parties to bear their own costs. K. B. A. Petition accepted.