ORDER SHEET
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.
C.P.No.S-526 of 2014.
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
24th day of July, 2014
Miss.
ParveenChachar, Advocate for petitioner a/w petitioner
Mr. ShahidShaikh, A.P.G. for the State a/w
SHO Ghulam Hyder PS Drigh Bala.
Through instant petition, the petitioner
has sought following relief(s):-
a)
To set
aside the order dated 28.5.2014 passed by the learned respondent No.1 to the
extent that the petitioner may be accorded permission to swear Nikah with her
husband Mubarak as according to Muhammadan Law the father being Wali of the
child can arrange marriage of his child on reaching the age of puberty and the
parents of the plaintiff undertake that they will arrange the rukhsati of the
petitioner on reaching the age of 18 years;
b)
Direct
the respondent No.2 to restrain the respondent No.3 from harassing the
petitioner and her family members / relatives / in-laws in any form or
manifestation and treat them like respectable citizens as guaranteed in the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan;
c)
To direct
the respondent No.1 to provide legal protection of life, honour, prestige and property to the
petitioner and her family members / relatives / in-laws against the sheer high
handedness of the respondent No.2;
d)
Direct
the respondent No.2 to furnish statement before this Honourable Court he will
not harass the petitioner and her family members / relatives / in-laws in any
form or manifestation’
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter
alia, contends that marriage ceremony of the petitioner with her cousin
Mubarak, aged about 30/35 years, was fixed on 27.5.2014 and was going on in
gathering of number of guests, when SHO Ghulam Hyder of PS Drigh Bala along with
his subordinate staff conducted raid; stopped marriage ceremony and produced
petitioner (bride) before the Magistrate on the plea that her parents are
contracting her marriage with an old person, aged about 60 years. Learned
Magistrate referred petitioner for medical examination and her statement was
recorded. In her statement, she categorically contended that she intends to
marry with Mubarak, with consent of her parents. In support of her contentions,
learned counsel referred to order passed by the learned Civil Judge &
Judicial Magistrate, Dadu; medical report of Civil Surgeon and statement of
petitioner, recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC, appended with petition and relied upon the
case of Hafiz Abdul Waheed V. Asma Jehangir (PLD 2004 SC 219).
3. On the other hand, learned A.P.G contended
that SHO, present in Court, alerted, when a news, flashed on TV channels
regarding marriage of one minor girl with an old person, he in pursuant to such
news, conducted raid and bound down the parties for their appearance before the
Magistrate hence official respondent (s), while discharging their official
duties, acted in good faith, therefore, they cannot be said to have committed
any fault.
4. After careful consideration of what has
been pleaded by respective sides and meticulous examination of the available
record, it appears that SHO, PS DrighBala, moved application before the
District & Sessions Judge, Dadu, that on receipt of information by
news-ticker that “in village Haji Khan
Lund one minor girl, aged about 15 years, namely Marvi, is being compelled to
contract marriage with an old person of 60 years age,” therefore they
reached there and got undertaking from bride and groom for their appearance
before Magistrate. The operative part of order passed by Magistrate, being
relevant, is reproduced hereunder:-
‘The lady is produced for her
statement on Oath. However, the lady seems to be subject to child Marriage
Restraint Act 2014, hence the SHO concerned is directed to produce the lady for
her age determination from Civil Surgeon Dadu. Let copy of this order be
communicate fro compliance. The SHO is directed to produce the lady again for
her statement after her age is determined.’
6. The perusal of above reflects that the
learned Magistrate took the matter as one of falling within meaning of the
Child Marriage Restraint Act, 2013 and as such proceeded to get her age
determined through medical examination. In result whereof, she (petitioner) was
reported to be aged about 15 years and she, in her 164 Cr.P.C, statement also
claimed to be 15/16 years of age. Further, she (petitioner), in her 164 Cr.PC
statement, properly and intelligently answered all questions and quarry while
reiterating that she herself intended to marry with Mubarak and her parents had
consented to such decision. Having observed such proceedings, the learned
Magistrate passed the following order:-
‘In light of the above factual and legal discussion,
it has concluded to me that every person either male or female is restraint
from marrying any male or female, as the case may be, under the age of eighteen
years. Hence, the law prohibits Miss. Marvi and her parents from getting her
married to any person unless she attends the age of eighteen years. So far as
custody of Miss Marvi is concerned, she has stated in her statement that she
wants to go with her mother and brother. As such her custody is handed over to
her mother Mst. Arbeli wife of Hamzo Lund and brother Ali Gohar son of Hamzo
Lund having CNIC No.41202-2366959-9 subject to furnishing their P.R. bonds in
the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two lacs) each besides, undertaking to abide by
the provisions of Sindh Child Marriage Restraint Act 2013 in its letter and
spirit till she becomes eighteen years old. The application so forwarded by the
Honourable District & Sessions Judge, Dadu is disposed of accordingly. Let
such compliance report be resubmitted to the Honourable Sessions court, Dadu’
7. Before diving deep into merits of the
order, It would be germane and necessary
to have a look what the Muslim Family Laws speak about the marriage and age of
a female for marrying because the Section 3 of the Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961 gives over-riding effect to it over other laws. The Muslim
Personal Law recognizes that it is
the ‘puberty’ which entitles one
to competently enter into a valid marriage. It was held by the
Federal Shariat Court in case of……, reported as under:-
PLD 1983
FSC 9
‘ Victim girl though said to
be less than 15 years yet nothing was on record showing her having not attained
the puberty. Medical evidence, on other hand, showed her puberty. Girl’s
marriage with appellant with her own consent, in circumstances, ought to be
treated as a valid marriage’
In the
case of ‘Abdul Waheed vs Asma Jehangir’ (PLD 2004 SC 219) it was held that:
‘Decision of Federal Shariat
Court is required to be followed by a High Court and by all Courts subordinate
to a High Court’
8. The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act
1939 recognizes such age as sixteen years (which earlier was 15 years but was
substituted as sixteen years by the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of
1961) , which finds place as Section 13 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance,
1961 and reads as under:-
(13. Amendment of the dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act,
1939 (VIII of 1939).In the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act,
1939 (VIII of 1939) in section 2:-
1. After
clause (ii) the following new clause (ii-a) shall be inserted, namely:-
“(ii-a)
that the husband has taken any additional wife…
(b) In clause (vii), for the
word ‘fifteen’ the word ‘sixteen’ shall be substituted)
9. Further, per Section 271 and 272 of
Mulla’s Principles of Muhammadan Law a marriage of minor (who not attained
puberty) is not invalid for simple reason that it was brought about by father
or grand-father and continues to be valid unless same is repudiated by that
girl before attaining age of 18 years. Therefore, such act of the father and
grand-father is protected by Muslim Laws unless the same is established or
proved to be in manifest disadvantage of the minor. Besides, the Section 273 of
the Mulla’s Principles of Muhammadan Law, provides that the marriage brought
about by other guardian is also not invalid unless she, resorted
to her operation to repudiate the marriage on attaining puberty.
10. At this juncture it would be significant
to refer the case of Mauj Ali v. Syed Safder Hussain (1970 SCMR 437), wherein
Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 was in issue, while deciding such controversy
honourable apex court held as under::
‘It is
not disputed that Mst. Musarrat has attained the age of puberty and she had
married with respondent No.1 of her own free will. Such a marriage is valid
according to Muhammadan Law. It was urged that such marriage is invalid under
the Child Marriage Restraint Act and, therefore, it should not have been
recognized by the High court. This contention also has no force. Since the
marriage is valid under the Muhammadan Law, respondent No.1, is the guardian of
Mst. Musarrat and the High Court was perfectly justified in allowing her to go
with her husband. We are satisfied that substantial justice has been
done in this case. We, therefore, do not consider this as a fit case to
interfere in our special jurisdiction.
(Underlining
has been supplied for emphasis)
11. While reverting to the case, it is
pertinent to mention that learned Magistrate, initiated the proceeding, while
referring Sindh Child Marriage Restraint Act 2013, but while in search such act
does not exist on book of statutes, and at the time of proceeding by magistrate,
it was only bill, hence bill cannot be treated as an Act. Worth to add here that
it is the assent of the Government which converts a ‘Bill’ of the
Provincial assembly into Law and gives it the status of an Act’ so is
evident from the Article-116(4) of the Constitution which, for sake of
convenience, is reproduced hereunder: -
(4)When the Government has
assented, (or is deemed to have assented) to a Bill, it shall become Law and be
called an Act of the Provincial Assembly.
Thus, at
the time of passing the impugned i.e 28.5.2013 , Sindh Child Marriage
Restraint Act, 2013’ had not attained the status of ‘law’ nor it
was an ‘Act’ , therefore, proceedings undertaken by the learned
Magistrate under such Act cannot be stamped to be valid or legal.
12. There can be no denial to the fact that ‘event
of the marriage’ is always an event of honour of family particularly,
when it is being solemnized without an attempt to keep it secret, therefore,
all authorities, otherwise, are entitled to question the validity thereof,
should strictly act keeping this aspect in mind and should not act in a manner
prejudicial to the honour of such family or girl. The authority should try to
first satisfy itself about genuineness of the information and then to decide
whether to proceed or otherwise because if at the end of the day the
information is found false or causeless there would be nothing to compensate
the loss, sustained by the family complained against.
13. In the instant matter, the police
official (s) acted in a blind manner by directly causing a ‘raid’ to
stop the marriage and even the learned Magistrate fell in error while not
making an inquiry towards puberty of the petitioner and even not got medical
opinion in that respect when girl was claiming to be the age of 15/16 years and
a consenting party to the marriage which was the requirement, as held by the
Honourable Apex Court in number of decision (s), therefore, order, impugned,
cannot legally sustain and is set-aside accordingly.
14. As regard the prayer clause (b) to (d) it
would suffice to say that petitioner and her family or relative, being citizen
of Pakistan, shall not be harassed and they shall continue enjoying guarantee,
provided by the Constitution and other laws of the lands and any breach thereof,
shall open the guilty not only to legal action, provided such act, but to
contempt of this Court.
J u d g e
Imran/PA