2011 PLP 493 (YLR)

SALMAN HAMID, J.

This petition was allowed by me in the morning, reasons whereof were to follow: The petitioners by way of the present petition prayed for as under: (a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call upon respondents Nos.1 and 5 to 7, restraining them from causing harassment to the petitioners in any manner. (b) Direct respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4, to provide protection to petitioners as guaranteed under the Consti tution. (c) To direct private respondents Nos.5 to 7 not to take law into their hands and give undertaking to the effect that they will not cause any harassment to the petitioners and will allow them to live with each other as husband and wife as per their wishes. (d) This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to direct respondent No.1 and to register any false case in relation to marriage of the petitioners. (e) To award costs. (f) Grant any other equitable relief. After notice to the respondents on 16-6-2010, the petition was adjourned to 24-6-2010 on which date Mr. Sarfraz Khan Jatoi, advocate filed power on behalf of the respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 and pointed out on that day that in fact the name of the petitioner is not Shazia but Yasmeen Kausar alias Shazia and further submitted that an F.I.R. has also been lodged by respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 for abduction of the petitioner No.1 (Mst. Shazia). It was, on that day also contended by learned counsel for respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 that her age is not 18 years as mentioned in Nikhanama and in fact she is only 16 years which was denied and disputed by the counsel appearing for petitioner No.1 by stating that she is the age of majority and sui juris. Confronted with such a situation, this Court on that day 24-6-2010 directed nadra for confirmation of the age of the petitioner No.1 from "B" Form. The matter thereafter was adjourned to 13-7-2010. On 13-7-2010, when this petition came up for hearing, it was once again pointed out by learned counsel for respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 that due to inadvertence instead of obtaining report from NADRA Khairpur Mirs. NADRA Larkana was directed to ascertain the same. Under the circum stances NADRA Khairpur Mirs was directed to do the needful. Till date no report from NADRA Khairpur Mirs was received by this Court. However, looking at the circumstances of the case, I found it appropriate to examine the petitioner No.1 and to explore, if allegations, those have been raised by the respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 are true or otherwise, inasmuch as per the dictum laid down in the case of Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Msr. Asma Jahangir and others reported as PLD 2004 SC 219 even consent of Wall is not required where a person is found to be a sui juris Muslim. As per Black's Law Dictionary, seventh edition a sui juris means ones own right independent, of full age and capacity possessing full social and civil rights. I was therefore, of the opinion that if the petitioner falls with the meaning of sui juris, getting un-necessarily involved in verifying the age of petitioner No.1 would be of no significance as being in such capacity i.e sui juris the petitioner No.1 was well within her rights to have entered into valid Nikah/marriage of her own freewill. Though, under normal circum stance, it was not required under the Constitutional jurisdiction of this court, under which the present petition was filed, to put the petitioner in to witness box, however in order to do satisfy my self and to do substantial justice put her in the, box. The petitioner No.1 deposed as under: "The petitioner No.2 is my husband. I was married to petitioner No.2 Farzand Ali on 10-6-2010. I have come to the Court with my husband whom I am living with since the date of my Nikah. I got married to Farzand Ali petitioner No.2 according to my own free will and accord and without any coercion or misrepresentation by any one. I want to go back from the Court with my husband. Prior to my nikah with petitioner No.2, I was living with my parents at Ranipur. I passed my middle class approximately 5 years back from now from Mehran School Ranipur. I do not wish to go back to my parents or other relatives as I fear that they will beat me up and maltreat me which I do not want. After my marriage with petitioner No.2, his behaviour was not befitting a husband. However, despire such behaviour I still wish to live rest of my life with my husband." From the above, it has become abundantly clear that all the allegations those were raised by respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were of no significance and were aimed at to browbeat and intimidate and harass the petitioner unnecessary who may then succumb to their demands. I the case reported as Mauj Ali v. Syed Safdar Hussain Shah and another 1970 SCMR 437 their Lordships of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (as they then were) decided in a habeas corpus petition, that a girl having attained puberty (under Muhammadan Law) contracting marriage with a person of her own freewill would be a valid marriage according to the Muhammadan Law and that her husband would be her guardian. In that case it was also held that such marriage would not be in violation of the provision of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. Looking at this case, in the light of the above 'pronouncement of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, it would become clear from the deposition of petitioner No.1 that she is a sui juris: of full age and capable of possessing full social and civil rights. In my opinion the petitioner No.1 was also of the age of majority at the time of her Nikha inasmuch as that she stated in her deposition that she passed her middle examination five years back from the date of her marriage. It is common knowledge that usually .the area where the present petitioner comes from, girls of thirteen/fourteen years of age are the students of Middle Class. If fourteen years are added to five years, it comes to nineteen years. Nothing, much is required to be added. The allegations of counsel for the respondents Nos.5. 6 and 7 that she was/is under the influence of petitioner No.2 or that she has been abducted or that her marriage was not as per her will are also of no significance if looked at in the light of the deposition recorded by her before this Court today when she candidly stated that petitioner No.2's behaviour was not befitting a husband. However, despite such behaviour I still wish to live rest of my life with my husband. If the petitioner No.1 was under influence of the petitioner No.2 such a candid, open and blunt statement would have not been given by her. These are the reasons for the disposal of the above petition. H.B.T./S-78/K Petition dismissed.