1989 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 6‑‑Contracting second marriage without permission from first wife‑ Punishment for‑‑Accused contracting second marriage during subsistence of existing marriage without permission from first wife was convicted to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000‑‑Appellate Court reduced sentence of imprisonment to already undergone and fine from two thousand to one thousand‑‑Revision by first wife filed against reduction of sentence‑‑Contention that accused having undergone only four days' simple imprisonment, his sentence should not have been reduced‑‑Case being old one and accused who stood convicted had undergone some period of imprisonment as well, High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in interest of justice refused to award sentence of imprisonment to accused at that stage. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu for Petitioner. The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the petitioner Mst. Manzoor Bibi was married to respondent Muhammad Afzal Haq on 2‑6‑1977. During this wedlock two infants were born but both expired. Later on, on 13‑5‑1983, respondent Muhammad Afzal Haq contracted a second marriage with Mst. Shamim Akhtar without the permission of his first wife or from the concerned Union Council. Both the marriages were duly registered with the Union Council. The petitioner moved the Union Council for prosecution of the respondent under section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. An application was filed which came up for hearing before Rao Tehsin Ahmed Tehseen, Magistrate First Class, Kamalia. Who at the conclusion of the trial convicted the respondent to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,

000. Muhammad Afzal Haq respondent tiled an appeal against his conviction and sentence which came up for hearing be fore Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, on 13‑12‑1987. The learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal reduced the sentence of imprisonment to already undergone and the sentence of fine was also reduced from two thousand to one thousand or in default to undergo 1‑1/2 months' S.I. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the sentence reduced by the learned appellate Court is too low. Contends that even if the learned appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the sentence was harsh he should not have reduced it to one already undergone. Contends that the petitioner had undergone only four days' simple imprisonment which certainly is not adequate.

2. I have heard learned counsel at length and perused the record. As far as the sentence of fine is concerned, if the respondent fails to pay the tine he shall further undergo S. I. for 1‑1/2 months. Under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, in such like situation the husband has to pay the dower on demand. This in itself is also a punishment. It is an old matter pertaining to the year 1983 and it would not be in the interest of justice to award the sentence of imprisonment to the respondent at this stage. The respondent stands convicted and has undergone some period of imprisonment as well. I agree with the learned appellate Court and I see no reason to interfere in the discretionary exercise of appellate Court.

3. Resultantly, the revision fails which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1084 Revision dismissed.