The Chief Justice of Lahore High Court on Thursday sought assistance of the law officer on a law point whether or not a notice through chairman union council concerned was mandatory for execution of divorce. The chief justice was hearing a bail petition of Kamran Ahmad involved in a case lodged under Hadood ordinance by Abdul Qadir with police station Urban Area, Sargodha.
The complainant said he had married Kaneez Akhter and out of this wedlock a boy Usman was born, who was seven years of old now. He alleged that his wife developed illicit relations with the petitioner Kamran who was their neighbour. And after sometime the accused abducted his wife but later on he came to know that Kaneez declaring herself virgin entered into marriage with the accused/Kamran and their nikah was solemnised on August 8, 2003. The FIR was registered against both Kamran and Kaneez, however, the lady obtained bail from the High Court.
On Thursday, petitioner's counsel argued that the complainant Abdul Qadir had divorced her wife orally in the presence of many family members. He said the petitioner legally contracted marriage with Kaneez Akhter and had two children out of this wedlock.
The counsel relying upon a case "Allah Dad vs Mukhtar etc" in shariat appellate bench of Supreme Court (1992 SC/1273) wherein the court had held that there was no need of giving a notice to chairman union council concerned for the execution of divorce and according to "Shariah Muhammadi" there was also no need of giving notice but even orally "Talaq" pronounced by the husband could be sufficient.
The counsel pointed out that the complainant was disturbing the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioner on malafide intention, which also reflected from one-month delay in registration of FIR after the solemnisation of nikah. After hearing the arguments the chief justice directed additional Advocate General Muhammad Hanif Khatana to assist the court in the matter and also directed police to produce the complaint on September 16.