2025 PLP 114 (MLD)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----S. 5---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5 & Sched.---Suit for jactitation of marriage instituted by lady---Execution of valid Nikah Nama---Failure to prove---Effect---Family Court decreed the suit against the petitioner declaring alleged Nikah as void and the same (finding) was affirmed by the Appellate Court---Assertion of the petitioner was that respondent/lady renegaded from her previous position/ stand, who (lady) had filed various petitions and made statements, including statement under S.164 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, acknowledging her status as lawfully wedded wife of the petitioner---Validity---Record (evidence) revealed that conduct, relationship and execution of Nikiah Nama was categorically denied by respondent /lady in the plaint and as a witness---Petitioner, who alleged existence of valid marriage and sought decree of conjugal rights, utterly failed to prove conduct of marriage; and was evasive regarding sharai nikah in the written statement, and later pleaded conduct of sharai nikah, which was obviously an afterthought---Petitioner produced (got exhibited) Nikah Nama but failed to prove its execution, validity and lawfulness---Even otherwise requirements of a valid Nikah in terms of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, were not proved---Petitioner testified that Nikah was arranged and conducted in the office of a lawyer, where 10- 12 persons were sitting, but none of whom was produced as witness---Evidence of witness of the petitioner /defendant did not inspire any confidence, who submitted affidavit( having been marked) stating against marriage between petitioner and respondent /lady, but when confronted with it, he stated that he was under pressure ; said witness was shown as representative of the bride, who admitted having acquaintance with the lady because she worked at the medical clinic of the petitioner---Said evidence substantiated allegation by respondent / lady against petitioner that latter abducted her, and the evidence of said witness had no weightage or value---No witnesses of Nikah Nama were produced---Advocate in whose chamber Nikah was allegedly solemnized was not produced---Assertion that respondent /lady submitted petitions and appeared in courts, and made statement before Magistrate, had little value in the context of allegations levelled by respondent / lady against the petitioner---Even otherwise, voluntariness and truthfulness, essential ingredients of statement under S.164 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, were not proved---No lawyer was produced to prove that lady had signed petitions affidavit and appeared in person before the Court---Undeniably, respondent / lady worked at a Medical Clinic, run by the petitioner---Respondent/ lady appeared as witness, who was cross-examined on the point of her affidavit and statements made but she categorically denied the same---In suit(s) for jactitation of marriage, it was ethical to consider that lady had disowned marriage and her statement, and she had denied having exercised free- will and was terrorized or put in awful fear of harm/ injury and physical abuse---Even otherwise, self-harming statements carried more authenticity, high evidentiary value and deserved more credibility and weightage, compared to the evidence of the petitioner, read in the context of the apparent motive, intending to avoid incriminating charges in criminal case which manifested tendency of misrepresenting the facts--- No interference was warranted to disturb concurrent findings and conclusions under constitutional jurisdiction, in absence of any illegality and material defect---Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.
• Ijaz Ahmad Gurmani for Respondents.
• 4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported concurrent decisions, hereby impugned.
• 6. Evidence is examined threadbare. Conduct, relationship and execution of Nikah Nama was categorically denied by respondent No.3 in the plaint and as witness. Petitioner, who alleged existence of valid marriage, and sought decree of conjugal rights utterly failed to prove conduct of marriage, who was evasive regarding sharai nikah in the written statement, later pleaded conduct of sharai nikah, which obviously is an afterthought. Petitioner produced Nikah Nama Exh.D-2 but failed to prove execution, validity and lawfulness thereof. Even otherwise requirements of a valid Nikah in terms of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 were not proved. Petitioner testified that Nikah was arranged and conducted in the office of the lawyer, where good 10-12 persons were sitting, none of which was produced as witness. Evidence of DW-2-Muhammad Arshad-did not inspire any confidence, who submitted affidavit -[Mark-B]- stating against marriage between petitioner and respondent No.3, but when confronted with it, he stated that he was under pressure. Muhammad Arshad was shown as representative of the bride, who admitted having acquaintance with the lady because she worked at the medical clinic of the petitioner - this substantiates allegation by respondent No.3 against petitioner that latter abducted her. Arshad's evidence had no weightage or value. No witnesses of Nikah Nama were produced. Advocate in whose chamber Nikah was allegedly solemnized was not produced. Assertion that respondent No.3 submitted petitions and appeared in courts, made statement before Magistrate, have had little value in the context of allegations levelled by respondent No.3 against the petitioner. Even otherwise voluntariness and truthfulness, essential ingredients of statement under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 were not proved. No lawyer was produced to prove that lady had signed petitions / affidavit and appeared in person before the court. It is not denied that respondent No.3 worked at Medical Clinic, run by the petitioner. Respondent No.3 appeared as PW-1, who was cross-examined on the point of her affidavit and statements made but she categorically denied. In suit(s) for jactitation of marriage, where lady had disowned marriage and her statement, when she had denied having exercised free-will and was terrorized or put in awful fear of harm / injury and physical abuse, is critical. Even otherwise self-harming statements carry more authenticity, high evidentiary value and deserve more credibility and weightage, as compared to the evidence of the petitioner, read in the context of the apparent motive, intending to avoid incriminating charges in criminal case - which manifest tendency of misrepresenting the facts.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree