P L D 2021 Lahore 768 (PLP)
ANWAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2021 Lahore 768 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ANWAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2021 Lahore 768 (PLP)?
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 P L D 2021 Lahore 768 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2021 Lahore 768 (PLP) (ANWAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Mureed Hussain for Petitioner.
- Qazi Ammar Arshad for Respondent No.2
Headnotes / Summary
S. 6(5)(b) [as amended by Punjab Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act (XIII of 2015)]
Second marriage contracted by husband without permission of first wife
Fine, reduction in
Scope
Sessions Court reduced the imprisonment of accused/petitioner (husband) to that of already undergone, however, maintained sentence of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- passed by the Judicial Magistrate
Question was whether the sentence of fine imposed against the petitioner could be reduced in consideration of the circumstances weighed by Appellate Court while reducing the quantum of sentence of imprisonment
Held, that sentence of fine stipulated in S.6(5)(b) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, was amended by the Legislature, through Punjab Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 by substituting, "or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both" with "and with fine of five hundred thousand rupees"
Legislature had thus withdrawn the discretion of Court with regard to quantum of fine itself, which transpired its intention
Imposition of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- to a convict under S. 6(5)(b) of Punjab Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, was mandatory
Though discretion with regard to the quantum of sentence of imprisonment was provided, yet no such space was given in case of sentence of fine
No illegality, jurisdictional error or impropriety was found in the judgments passed by the Courts below with regard to the question of law involved
Criminal revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, J.
Through this criminal revision, the petitioner/convict has assailed the sentence of fine imposed by the learned courts below vide judgment dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mandi Bahauddin, whereby he was convicted in private complaint filed by respondent No.2 under section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, whereas in appeal the imprisonment of the petitioner was reduced to that of already undergone, however, sentence of fine was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2019.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Dealing with criminal revision in hand the only point in issue to be resolved is that whether the sentence of fine imposed against the petitioner can be reduced in consideration of the circumstances weighed by the learned appellate court while reducing the quantum of sentence of imprisonment imposed. For convenience initial text of Clause (b) of sub section (5) of section 6 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is reproduced as under: Section 6(5)(b)
"On conviction upon complaint be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both." While the aforesaid clause has been substituted later on by Punjab Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act No.XIII of 2015) which reads as under: Section 6(5)(b) -- "On conviction upon complaint be punishable with the simple imprisonment which may extend to one year and with fine of five hundred thousand rupees." The legislature through the above reproduced substitution of sub-clause (b) subsection (5) of Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 has withdrawn the discretion of Court with regard to quantum of fine to be imposed and imposition of fine itself which very clearly transpires intention of the legislature.
4. The case in hand when viewed in the context of the substitution/amendment mentioned supra leads this Court to conclude that imposition of fine of Rs.500,000/- to a convict under Section 6(5)(b) of Punjab Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act No.XIII of 2015), is mandatory. Though discretion with regard to the quantum of sentence of imprisonment is provided yet no such space is given in case of sentence of fine. The judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner reported as Ishtiaq Ahmad v. The State and others (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 187) and Noor Muhammad and another v. State, and others [PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore)275 (DB)] are not applicable to the facts of instant case and subject legal proposition. No illegality, jurisdictional error or impropriety in the judgments passed by the learned courts below with regard to the question of law involved could be surfaced. Hence, this petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed. MQ/A-72/L Revision dismissed.