Court Marriage in Lahore



Haider Abbas Bhindar Vs DPO, etc.


Syed Tanvir Ahmad Hashmi, Advocate for the petitioner.
1. This is the second petition, earlier the petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.192413-H/2018 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.04.2018 and now this petition has been filed without any cogent reason.
2. It is argued by learned counsel that the petitioner got married with Mst. Naila Shahzadi on 08.01.2018, but as the said marriage was contracted without the blessings of parents of Mst. Naila Shahzadi, therefore, on 26.03.2018, respondent No.3 (father of the girl), respondent No.4 (brother of the girl) and respondents No.5 and 6 (paternal uncles of the girl) came to the house of the petitioner and forcibly took Mst. Naila Shahzadi (wife of the petitioner) with them.
3. Heard.
4. It has become a trend in our society, rather it has shaped into a well thought out practice that girls come out of their houses for couple of hours on any pretext whatsoever; enter into marriage without the consent of their parents; file a complaint alleging harassment to them and their husbands; return back to their parental home and thereafter, the entire above exercise is followed by filing of petitions, like the instant one, before this court. All above is managed with a view to use this court as a stage of “Rukhsati.” This is prime time for the courts to notice and as far as practicable to plug such indecent activity nothing less than menace, which is not only destroying charter of our youth; it is also stigmatizing and diminishing our moral values.
5. For the purposes of proceedings under section 491 Cr.P.C. this court has observed that no evidence has been cited by the petitioner to lend support to his assertion about
immediate and forcible abduction of Mst. Naila Shahzadi, otherwise, it is not expected that a major girl is forcibly abducted but none from the locality gets even a glimpse of the incident or does not even hear the hullaballoo. Although it is alleged in the petition that petitioner was telephonically informed by Mst. Naila Shahzadi about her forcible detention, but no cellular or landline number has been given to establish the said factum.
6. It is admitted by the petitioner himself that Mst. Naila Shahzadi is now with her parents. This Court in the case “MUKHTAR AHMAD versus GHAFOOR AHMAD and 3 others” (PLD 1990 Lahore 484), held that:- “………any restraint placed on the movements of a son or a daughter by a father out of concern for his or her welfare and to prevent ill-advised action by him or her cannot be termed illegal or improper detention unless such a restraint is patently unjust, cruel and obviously not in the best interest of the son or daughter so restrained; or if the general attitude and the usual treatment of the son or daughter by the father is such that it may attract the penal provisions of law. Otherwise it is accepted by every civilized society and duly approved of by every moral code and sanctioned by every religion, that, within limits prescribed, a parent has the right to restrain from, and to admonish in respect of, and to give practical expression to his or her disapproval of, the conduct unbecoming in his or her judgment, of a son or daughter.” Similar view was taken by this Court in the case “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), holding that custody of a girl with her parents (father, mother, brothers)
cannot be termed as illegal or improper. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is not persuaded that a case for handing over the custody of Mst. Naila Shahzadi to the petitioner is made out, nor shall this court allow its jurisdiction under section 491 Cr.P.C. to be invoked to effect a “Rukhsati”, especially keeping in mind that the petitioner has appropriate and specific remedy to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court and it is requirement of law that before proceeding further the said court
shall summon both the parties for reconciliation proceedings and at that stage if the alleged abductee admits her Nikah with the petitioner, she may join the petitioner.
8. For what has been discussed above, this court is convinced that apart from the fact that the custody of Mst. Naila Shahzadi with her parents is not illegal, even the ingredients of
section 491 Cr.P.C. also do not exist in this case. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to seek alternate remedies in proper form at the appropriate forum.