Crl.Misc.No.196096-H/2018
Lahore High Court-Lahore
The petitioner married Mst. Naila Shahzadi in January of 2018. As this was conducted without the permission of the parents of the bride, it was alleged that her family had forcibly taken her with them on 26th March 2018. The petitioner filed a petition alleging that his wife was forcibly abducted from his house.
The court after hearing both sides made certain remarks before stating its decision. It noted that a similar petition had been filed earlier but was dismissed and the current petition had been filed again, without any cogent reason. The court also made some observations on certain practices relevant to court marriage. It stated that it has turned into a well-developed practice that females leave their homes under some pretext for a couple of hours, enter into a marriage without the consent of their parents, file a complaint alleging harassment to be faced by them and their husband, return back to their parental home and this exercise is followed by filing petitions, similar to the one being adjudicated. The court is taken to be a “stage of Rukhsati” and it is time that the courts put an end to this activity which is nothing short of a menace as it is damaging the character of the young and their moral values.
Regarding the current proceeding under section 491 CrPC, the court noted that no evidence had been adduced by the petitioner to support his assertion. The female alleged to be abducted was an adult and her forcible abduction from the home of the petitioner was not witnessed or heard of by anyone living in the same locality. It was stated that the petitioner was telephonically informed by his wife about her forcible detention, but no cellular or landline number was provided to evidence this.
The petitioner admitted that his wife was currently with her parents. In view of this fact, the case of “MUKHTAR AHMAD versus GHAFOOR AHMAD and 3 others” (PLD 1990 Lahore 484) was cited where it was held that, as accepted by every moral code and religion, a father could reasonably restrain his child’s movements if he was concerned for the child’s welfare. Such a restriction would not be illegal unless it is patently unjust, cruel and quite obviously not in the best interest of the child or if the usual treatment of the child is such that it may involve the application of penal provisions of the law. Cases including “IRFAN AHMAD versus SHO and 6 others” (2011 P.Crl.L.J. 597) and “MUHAMMAD JAVED SAGAR versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 2 others” (2011 P.Crl.L.J. 674), which held that the custody of a girl with her parents (father, mother, brothers) could not be termed as illegal or improper, were also cited.
The court therefore decided that a case to hand over the custody of the Naila Shahzadi to the petitioner had not been established. It also stated that it would not allow its jurisdiction to be used to effect a “Rukhsati”, especially since the petitioner could apply for the restitution of conjugal rights before a family court. It narrated the legal requirement, before such a case could proceed further, that the court would summon both parties for reconciliation proceedings and if the female admitted her Nikah with the petitioner, she would then be allowed to join her husband. The petitioner was encouraged to seek alternative remedies and the petition was dismissed.