1986 P Cr (PLP)

S. 6‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.9‑‑Bigamy‑ Complaint by District Magistrate‑‑Effect‑‑Complaint not lodged by aggrieved party‑‑Aggrieved party obtaining decree for dissolution of marriage and not interested in pursuing matter‑‑Order of District Magistrate for registration of case, held, was without lawful authority and of no legal effect.--[Complaint]. Abdul Wahid Khan for Petitioner. Respondent No.2 in person. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1986. This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. The background is that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were married in 1976 but their relations became strained. The respondent filed suits for dissolution of her marriage as well as for recovery of dower, and the petitioner flied a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. While these suits were pending the respondent moved the Court of the District Magistrate with the allegation that the petitioner has committed bigamy as he has contracted second marriage dung the subsistence of the first without permission of the Arbitration Council. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not contracted the second marriage and that, therefore, there was no violation of law and offence of bigamy had not been committed. It is also stated that the District Magistrate despite that sent the complaint case to a Magistrate subordinate to him for its disposal The Magistrate gave the finding that the Nikah of the petitioner with another woman was not proved and, therefore, no offence under section 6 of the Family Laws Ordinance had been committed. However, the District Magistrate without going through the facts and the record ordered, vide the impugned order, dated 29‑5‑1982 for registration of the case against the petitioner and others. The main point which is being raised by learned counsel is that requirement of law is that only complaint can be filed by an aggrieved person of bigamy and case cannot be registered at the instance of the District Magistrate. 2. I have heard learned counsel and I agree with him. Even otherwise it is a matter of 1982. Ayub Khan, father of respondent No. 2 is present in Court and he informs the that respondent No.2 had already obtained a decree for dissolution of her marriage and consequently the marriage between them stands dissolved. He is not interested in perusing the matter. Anyway, since the complaint in the instant case had not been lodged by the aggrieved party, i. e. respondent No. 2, and it was at the instance of the District Magistrate that a case was registered under the aforesaid section, the impugned, order passed by the District Magistrate has been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. It is hereby set aside. The writ petition is accepted but there shall be no order as to costs. S.A. Petition accepted.