P L D 1994 Lahore 20 (PLP)

The petitioner seeks a direction for issuance of a certificate regarding effectiveness of Talaq.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage which was decreed ex parte in her favour by the Family Court on 30‑9‑1992. The petitioner sent a copy of the judgment and decree of the Family Court to the Chairman, Union Council, Ram Thuman, Tehsil and District Kasur, who received it on 12‑10‑1992 and issued notice for summoning Muhammad Siddiq, respondent No.3 for 7‑11‑1992. The petitioner nominated her representative on 7‑12‑1992 and the respondent appeared before the Chairman on 15‑12‑1992 and nominated his representative. Thus the Arbitration Council was constituted on 15‑12‑1992, although the same sought to have been constituted within 30 days as required under section 7(4) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. Thereafter, the Chairman went on adjourning the matter on one pretext or the other and did not issue certificate of effectiveness of decree/Talaq.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.3 as well as respondents 1 and 2, who were present in person. The Chairman had received the decree for dissolution of marriage on 12‑10‑1992, which was to be treated like a notice for Talaq and steps were to be taken for constituting the Arbitration Council within 30 days under section 7(4) of the Ordinance and efforts were to be made for bringing about reconciliation between the parties. On failure of the parties to reconcile, the Talaq/decree had to become effective on the expiry of period of 90 days from the date on which the Chairman had received the decree. However, without adopting the proper legal procedure, the Chairman went on adjourning the case on the asking of respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the contesting parties agree that in the eye of law the marriage stands dissolved because no reconciliation could take place between the parties within the statutory period of 90 days. Respondents Nos.l and 2 undertake that they shall issue certificate of effectiveness of the decree/Talaq to the petitioner. In this view of the matter the petition has borne fruit.

4. Before parting with the order, I feel constrained to observe that Khushi Muhammad, respondent No.l can only sign his own name but cannot even read the interim orders which have been written by the Secretary of Union Council, respondent No.2 who is Matriculate. The Chairman states that he had studied up to II class but can neither speak nor read or write Urdu. He does not know anything about the Family Laws. In reply to a Court question he stated that he did not know that he had to constitute the Arbitration Council within 30 days or that on failure of reconciliation between the spouses he had to issue a certificate regarding effectiveness of Talaq/decree on the expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the decree. In reply to another question, he stated, like a simpleton that he went on adjourning the matter on the asking of the parties. It is unfortunate that the delicate matters pertaining to maintenance and Talaq are being handled by an illiterate Chairman who knows nothing about the Family Laws. The learned counsel for the parties state that respondent No. 1 is not the only illiterate Chairman but there are many others in the field. It is high time that the Government should intervene and prescribe some minimum academic qualifications for the Chairmen of the Local Councils who have to perform semi‑judicial functions. Moreover, after the elections, arrangements should be made to make them well‑conversant with the Family Laws. If this is not done, the illiterate Chairmen will go on playing havoc with the rights of the citizens.

5. Since it has come to my notice that respondent No.1 does not know anything about Family Laws and cannot even understand the interim orders written by the Secretary, it would be appropriate that in future he should not be allowed to handle any matter falling within the jurisdiction of his Union Council. As mentioned above, respondent No.1 is totally incapable of understanding or conducting the proceedings. Hence, handling of cases by him is nothing short of "misconduct". The cases pertaining to maintenance, Talaq etc. often involve intricate questions of law. The proceedings pertaining to the said matters can be conducted only by a person who can understand the law governing the matters. Respondent No.l allows his Secretary to scribe the interim orders, prepare notices and write the final judgments. Without understanding the contents of the same, he puts his signatures thereon. This is obviously bad conduct and wrong handling of the semi‑judicial matters squarely falling within the purview of the word "misconduct" used in Rule 6‑A of the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Therefore, in all propriety the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, District Kasur, in exercise of the powers vested in him under the provisions of Rule 6‑A of the Rules should transfer the cases pending before respondent No.l to some other Union Council having an educated Chairman.

6. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of as having borne fruit.

7. A copy of the above order be sent to the Provincial Government through the Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs for suitable action in the light of the observations made in para. 4 above (portion marked as `A'). A.A./S‑358/L Order accordingly.