Summary: (a) Family law—Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (DMMA) ----S. 2(ii), (ii-a), (viii); Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (MFLO), S. 6; Constitution, Arts. 14, 25 & 35 Dissolution—Grounds—Second marriage without permission—Admitted second marriage contracted by husband during subsistence of first marriage, without consent of first wife or permission of Arbitration Council—Conviction under S. 6(5), MFLO remained unchallenged—Held, contravention of S. 6, MFLO squarely attracts S. 2(ii-a), DMMA and, by itself, furnishes a complete ground to dissolve the marriage—Marriage dissolved on this ground. (b) Family law—Khula v. statutory dissolution ----DMMA, S. 2; MFLO, S. 6 Whether Family Court may convert a suit for dissolution on statutory grounds into khula without wife’s consent—Held, No—Khula is a distinct remedy premised on the wife’s informed, voluntary consent; it cannot be imposed to replace a failed statutory ground—Family Court erred in granting khula suo motu and in forfeiting dower on that basis. (PLD 2024 SC 645 ref.) (c) Evidence—Standard of proof in DMMA proceedings ----DMMA, S. 2; QSO, 1984, Art. 117 (general burden) Standard—Balance of probabilities applies; insistence on FIRs, medical certificates or documentary corroboration to prove cruelty is misconceived—Courts must assess the woman’s testimony and surrounding circumstances, including mental and emotional abuse often occurring in private (“bedroom crime”)—High Court’s reliance to avoid re-appraisal in constitutional jurisdiction is inapt where the legal standard applied below is erroneous. (PLD 2022 SC 353; 2024 SCMR 1271; 2021 SCMR 1986; PLD 1996 SC 267; 1995 SCMR 955; 2022 CLC 974; 2023 SCMR 1434 distinguished) (d) Cruelty—Scope and assessment ----DMMA, S. 2(viii) Cruelty includes physical, mental and emotional abuse; may consist of patterns of conduct rendering marital life intolerable; focus is the impact of the husband’s behavior on the wife—Courts below erred by treating absence of eyewitnesses and documents as fatal and by ignoring the cumulative effect of conduct pleaded and deposed. (PLD 1963 Dacca 947; 2015 MLD 1623; 2013 CLC 1203; 2023 SCMR 246 ref.) (e) Maintenance during subsistence of marriage ----Nikahnama (cl. 17); MFLO; Constitution, Arts. 14, 25 & 35 Obligation—Payment of Rs.10,000 per month stipulated—Unrebutted evidence of non-payment—Alleged “disobedience” is not a lawful ground to deny maintenance—Findings to contrary set aside; maintenance payable for the subsistence period of marriage. (PLD 2022 SC 686 ref.) (f) Dower (mehr) ----Khula not granted—Effect—Where dissolution is decreed on a statutory ground (here, illegal second marriage), wife is not required to return dower—Petitioner entitled to retain plot (200 sq. yds., FES Jinnah Garden Phase-I, Islamabad), 30 tolas gold, and Rs.500,000/-; amount not earlier paid remains payable. (g) Judicial reasoning—Gender-sensitive adjudication & language ----Constitution, Arts. 14, 25 & 35 Courts must eschew patriarchal stereotypes and moralistic terminology (“disobedient/self-deserting wife”, “compelled to contract second marriage”) that stigmatize women and obscure legal standards—Judicial language must reflect dignity, equality and non-discrimination; findings must be evidence-based, not presumption-driven. (h) Case law distinguished / affirmed ----Rashid Ali Shah v. Haleema Bibi, PLD 2014 Pesh 226, and similar views—Not good law post-PLD 2025 SC 262; clause (ii-a) of S. 2, DMMA remains a subsisting ground—Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari, 2023 SCMR 1434, distinguished on scope (standard of proof issue, not re-appraisal of facts). (PLD 2025 SC 262 ref.) Cited Cases: • Ibrahim Khan v. Mst. Saima Khan, PLD 2024 SC 645 • Faryal Maqsood v. Khurram Shehzad Durrani, PLD 2025 SC 262 • Haseen Ullah v. Mst. Naheed Begum, PLD 2022 SC 686 • Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari, 2023 SCMR 1434 (dist.) • Muhammad Shariful Islam v. Suraya Begum, PLD 1963 Dacca 947; Shahana Bibi v. Nadeem Shah, 2015 MLD 1623; Rabia Rasheed v. Faisal Mir, 2013 CLC 1203; Tayyeba Ambareen v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani, 2023 SCMR 246 • Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din, PLD 2022 SC 353; Nazeeran v. Ali Bux, 2024 SCMR 1271; Khalid Hussain v. Nazir Ahmad, 2021 SCMR 1986; Muhammad Amir v. Khan Bahadur, PLD 1996 SC 267; Begum Hamid Mehmood v. Muhammad Masood, 1995 SCMR 955; Meezan Bank Ltd. v. WAPDA First Sukuk Co., 2022 CLC 974 Disposition: Civil petition converted into appeal and allowed—Judgments of Family Court, Appellate Court and High Court set aside to the extent of khula, dower and maintenance—Marriage dissolved on ground of second marriage in violation of law (DMMA S. 2(ii-a) read with MFLO S. 6)—Petitioner retains dower (plot, gold, Rs.500,000/-) and is entitled to maintenance at Rs.10,000 per month for the period the marriage subsisted—Approved for reporting.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961----S. 6(5)(b)---Second marriage without prior permission---Jurisdiction of court---Corum non-judice---Petitioner contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage without seeking permission from the Arbitration Council or the first wife as required under S.6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---Complaint was filed by the first wife nearly 3½ years after the second marriage and post-divorce---Learned Magistrate Section 30 tried and convicted the petitioner---Held, proceedings before Magistrate Sec-30 were corum non-judice as the court had not been conferred powers of a Family Court, which alone has jurisdiction to take cognizance and try offences under the Ordinance---Head-note of the original judgment revealed no designation or authority of the learned Magistrate as a Judge Family Court---Since trial was conducted by a court lacking lawful jurisdiction, entire proceedings were void ab initio and stood vitiated---Complaint was also held to be mala fide in light of delayed filing and family participation in second marriage.(b) Family Courts Act, 1964 (as amended by Punjab Amendment Act XI of 2015)----S. 5 & S. 20(3)---Exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court---Offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance---Cognizance of complaint---Complaint to be made by aggrieved party or Arbitration Council before Family Court---Only Family Courts designated under law have jurisdiction to try such matters as Judicial Magistrates of First Class---Amendments confer exclusive authority to Family Courts to entertain, adjudicate, and try such criminal matters---Since no proof existed that the trial Magistrate had been notified as a Family Court Judge, the assumption of jurisdiction was illegal---Established principle that when law prescribes a mode, it must be followed, and no alternative method is acceptable.(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Art. 175(2)---Jurisdiction of courts---Bar on exercise of jurisdiction without lawful conferment---No court shall exercise jurisdiction unless conferred by the Constitution or law---Any judicial proceedings conducted without lawful authority are null and void---In the present case, the court conducting the trial lacked jurisdiction under both statutory law and the Constitution.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 561-A---Quashing of proceedings---Where trial was initiated by a court lacking jurisdiction, entire proceedings including judgments of appellate court stand vitiated---Jurisdictional defect goes to the root of the matter and renders trial a nullity in law.Cited Cases:• Muzaffar Nawaz v. Ishrat Rasool and others 2022 YLR 1920• PLD 2010 SC 585• PLD 1985 SC 62Disposition:Petition allowed---Judgments of both the trial court and appellate court set aside---Petitioner acquitted of charge---Bail bond discharged.

Summary: Issue:The primary legal issue was whether the stipulation in the Nikah Nama, requiring Ghause to pay an additional Rs. 5,00,000 in dower in the event of a second marriage or divorce, was valid and enforceable.---Holding:The Lahore High Court held that the stipulation in the Nikah Nama was valid and enforceable, dismissing Ghause's petition. The Court found no evidence of fraud or forgery and noted that Ghause did not pursue any legal action against the alleged wrongdoers. The Court also rejected Ghause's argument that the stipulation was against Islamic injunctions, noting that such agreements are permissible and do not restrict the right to divorce or remarry.----Reasoning:The Court reasoned that the stipulations in the Nikah Nama were agreed upon by both parties and were akin to deferred dower, becoming payable upon specific events like divorce or remarriage. The Court found no jurisdictional error or blatant illegality in the lower courts' decisions and emphasized the finality of appellate courts' findings to prevent unnecessary litigation.---Disposition:Petition dismissed for lack of merit.---Key Points:Stipulations in a Nikah Nama regarding additional dower in the event of divorce or remarriage are enforceable if agreed upon by both parties.Claims of fraud or forgery in marriage contracts must be substantiated with evidence and legal action against the alleged perpetrators.The Lahore High Court emphasizes the importance of respecting the finality of appellate courts' decisions to ensure the expeditious resolution of family disputes.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, an overseas Pakistani woman, was married to the respondent in 2011. The marriage was registered in both Pakistan and Norway. The respondent later moved to Norway with a spouse visa, and the couple had a child together. In July 2022, the respondent contracted a second marriage in Pakistan without seeking formal permission from the petitioner. This prompted the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (MFLO), through her special attorney, seeking action against the respondent for marrying without permission. The Family Court dismissed the complaint for being filed through an attorney, and the Additional District Judge upheld this decision on appeal. The petitioner then filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. -----Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, can be filed and prosecuted through an attorney. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Filing of Complaint through Attorney: The court held that under criminal law, including Section 6 of the MFLO, complaints and criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or pursued through an attorney. Criminal law requires the personal involvement of the complainant, as the complainant must be someone who has personal knowledge of the facts and can testify to the offense. The court emphasized that criminal matters cannot be delegated to an attorney, as the attorney's testimony would be based on hearsay rather than personal knowledge. Relevance of Family Courts Act, 1964: The court referred to the Family Courts Act, 1964, which governs family matters, including those arising under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. While the act allows for representation through an agent in certain matters, it does not extend to criminal complaints like the one filed under Section 6 of the MFLO. The court cited relevant precedents that clarified that criminal complaints cannot be filed through attorneys. Dismissal of Petition: The court found that the lower courts were correct in dismissing the complaint for being filed through an attorney. The petitioner failed to show any legal error or irregularity in the lower courts' decisions. As a result, the constitutional petition was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Muzaffar Nawaz v. Ishrat Rasool (2022 YLR 1920) Liaqat Ali Mir v. Additional Sessions Judge (2017 P Cr. L J 1026) Muhammad Qasim v. SHO Police Station Khudabad, District Dadu (2016 MLD 1238) Khalid Mehmood and others v. Safdar Iqbal (2017 P Cr. L J 1104) Usman Saleem v. Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Karachi East (2021 P Cr. L J Note 66) Ghazanfar Ali v. M. Zahid Hussain and others (PLD 2011 Lahore 179)

Summary: Background: The petitioner, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court to challenge the orders dated 03.06.2022 and 31.10.2023 passed by the Judge Family Court, Lahore, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, respectively. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, accusing respondent Feroz Usmani of contracting a second marriage without permission while still married to her. Other respondents were accused of facilitating the marriage. ----Issues: 1- Whether the complaint against the remaining respondents, aside from Feroz Usmani, disclosed any offense under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. 2- Whether the trial court and the additional sessions court erred in dismissing the complaint against the other respondents. 3- Whether the orders passed by the courts below are in accordance with the law and facts of the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Application of Mind by the Magistrate: The Additional Sessions Judge emphasized that the magistrate must be satisfied that a trial is necessary based on the available record before issuing a process to summon the respondents. The court found that no incriminating material was available on record against the respondents, except for Feroz Usmani. ---Strict Interpretation of Criminal Statutes: The court noted that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, specifically Section 6(5), does not prescribe any offense or penalty against anyone other than the husband who contracts another marriage without permission from the Arbitration Council. The ordinance does not provide for any inchoate offenses such as attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy in relation to polygamy. ---Evidence and Cursory Statements: The complaint and cursory statements did not provide sufficient material to justify summoning the other respondents. The evidence provided by the petitioner was deemed insufficient to establish a prima facie case against them. ---Non-Applicability of Pakistan Penal Code: The court held that, being a special statute, the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, such as Section 109 for abetment, cannot be read into the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance to broaden the scope of the offense prescribed under Section 6(5). The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Family Court and the Additional Sessions Judge. The complaint against respondents other than Feroz Usmani did not disclose any offense under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The petition was dismissed in limine for being devoid of merit. -----Citations/Precedents: Mirza Shaukat Baig and others vs. Shahid Jamil and others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 530) Ex-Lance Naik Mukarram Hussain and others v. Federal Government, Ministry of Defence through Chief of Army Staff and others (2017 SCMR 580) Basharat Iqbal v. Nargis Rehana (1993 MLD 571)

Summary: (Second marriage of woman not sufficient to erode her right to custody) The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were previously married and had four children. The marriage was dissolved, and the mother filed an application for custody of the children under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. During the custody proceedings, two of the children voluntarily left their father's home and moved in with their mother. The mother also filed an application seeking protection from harassment by the father. The Senior Civil Judge eventually granted custody of the children to the mother, which was later overturned by the Appellate Court. The mother challenged the Appellate Court's decision through a writ petition, and the Lahore High Court upheld the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, granting custody to the mother. The father argued that the mother's second marriage disqualified her from having custody of the children under Islamic law. However, the mother's counsel explained that the families live separately, and the children are happy living with the mother. The High Court considered the welfare of the minors, the mother's financial independence and education, and the children's preference to live with the mother. The court concluded that the mother's second marriage did not disqualify her from custody, and it upheld the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments and Islamic law principles, emphasizing that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody matters. It noted that the mother's second marriage alone cannot disqualify her from custody. The court also considered the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes the best interests of the child and the child's right to express their views in custody cases. After confirming the children's preference to live with their mother, the Supreme Court found no illegality in the impugned judgment and dismissed the petition.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought to file a criminal case against her husband (respondent No.5) for misrepresentation, alleging that he did not disclose his prior marriage and divorce when they married. The petitioner claimed that her husband did not mention this information in the Nikahnama (marriage contract). After approaching the police and the courts, including filing a writ petition, the matter was sent to the Capital City Police Officer (CCPO), who declined to register an FIR, stating that family courts were the appropriate forum for such a case. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent (husband) committed a criminal offense by not disclosing his prior marital status in the Nikahnama. -----2- Whether the Nikahnama used at the time of the marriage contained a requirement for the husband to disclose his previous marriage and divorce. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that there was no criminal offense as the Nikahnama used in this case did not explicitly require the husband to disclose his previous marital status. The relevant columns in the Nikahnama only required the disclosure of children from prior marriages, not the fact of being a widower or divorcee. The court noted that if the Nikah Registrar used an outdated form of the Nikahnama that did not include a section for disclosing prior marital status, it was not the fault of the husband. The petition was dismissed as it lacked merit. The court also directed the relevant government department to ensure that updated Nikahnama forms are available to all Nikah Registrars.

Summary: Background:The case involves a dispute between the petitioner, Muhammad Jamil, and respondent No.1, Mst. Sajida Bibi, regarding recovery of dower, maintenance, and other related issues.Mst. Sajida Bibi, along with minors, filed a family suit against the petitioners for the recovery of dower, maintenance, and custody of minors.The trial court partially decreed the suit, and both parties appealed. The appellate court remanded the case for further findings on the issue of custody.Upon retrial, the family court decreed the suit partially in favor of Mst. Sajida Bibi.Both parties appealed again, and the appellate court partially allowed Mst. Sajida Bibi's appeal.Additionally, Mst. Sajida Bibi filed another suit for dissolution of marriage, which was decreed in her favor.The petitioner challenged the judgments of the lower courts through a constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court, which was dismissed.---Issues:Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the dower amount immediately due to contracting a second marriage without permission.Whether the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to Mst. Sajida Bibi.Whether the judgment of the High Court dismissing the constitutional petition should be upheld.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner contracted a second marriage without seeking permission from his first wife or the Arbitration Council, which renders the dower immediately payable according to section 6(5)(a) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.The Court found that the judgment of the High Court ordering the immediate payment of dower was in accordance with the law.As for the maintenance allowance, the Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision to decline the prayer.Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.

Summary: (a) Islamic-law-------Marriages---Irregular marriage---When a lady entered into marriage before completion ofiddat period, then said marriage would not be a "void marriage" but would be an irregularmarriage---Such union, which was an "irregular marriage", could not be regarded as beingagainst Sharia.Allah Dad v. Mukhtar Ahmed 1992 SCMR 1273 rel.(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------Ss. 373 & 372---Succession Certificate---Nature of proceedings under Ss.373 & 372 ofSuccession Act, 1925---Dispute between legal heirs and intricate questions of facts,determination of---Scope---Procedure provided for in S.373 of Succession Act, 1925 was ofa summary nature and did not decide rights of parties---For determination of rights as legalheirs, remedy lay before a court of competent jurisdiction---Intricate questions of fact couldnot be resolved in such summary proceedings, and questions as to title of property had to bedecided before a civil court.

Summary: (a) Inheritance-------Co-sharer, rights of---Principle---Co-sharership is result of devolution of inheritance, cosharer becomes co-sharer the moment inheritance opens---Even mutation of entries or sharein moveable property is also not necessary.2004 SCMR 392 rel.(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------S. 383---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Successioncertificate, revision of---Suit for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts---Compensation---Widow contracting second marriage---Husband of widow was policeconstable who died in bomb blast and Government announced compensation package andother facilities to bereaved family---Deceased was issueless, therefore, succession certificatewas issued in favour of widow and parents of the deceased---Parents of deceased assailedsuccession certificate in favour of widow on the plea that she had contracted second marriageand got revised succession certificate issued in their favour---Civil suit filed by parents ofwidow was decreed in their favour---Validity---Widow could not be deprived of her share inview of first succession certificate issued by Trial Court as on such date she was widow ofthe deceased; her second marriage could not operate retrospectively but Trial Court withoutconsidering such aspect of matter passed decree in favor of parents of deceased which couldnot be sustained except share of salary she received during subsistence of second marriage---Deceased was issueless and parents of deceased who were living with deceased and weredependents were included in the family---Revised succession certificate was issued by TrialCourt with consent of both the parties and thereafter, separate certificate was issuedrespectively---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside judgment passed byTrial court but maintained order regarding salary of deceased received by widow to extent ofher share during subsistence of second marriage---Appeal was allowed accordingly.PLD 1991 SC 731; PLD 2010 Kar. 153; PLD 2019 Sindh 1 and PLD 2013 Pesh. 1 ref.