SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.-- This criminal revision arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujar Khan dated 8-7-2010 whereby he dismissed the appeal against the order dated 6-5-2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Gujar Khan by virtue of which Raja Muhammad Azram petitioner/ accused was convicted under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 and sentenced to imprisonment for one month S.L and fine of Rs.5.000. In default of fine, he was to further undergo S.L for ten days.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22-9-1996 Raja Muhammad Azram/ petitioner/ accused was married with Mst. Jamail Banaras respondent No.l/ complainant at Gujar Khan. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. On 11-8-2004, during subsistence of his first marriage, the petitioner/accused contracted setond marriage with Mst. Shabana Akhtar daughter of Muhammad Ayub without seeking permission of the complainant and the Arbitration Council. In this way, the petitioner/accused committed an offence punishable under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961.
3. On 29-5-2008, Raja Muhammad Azrain/petitioner/accused was charged under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 by the learned Judicial Magistrate Gujar Khan to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case Jamila Banaras/ respondent No. 1/complainant examined herself as P.W.1, Raja Banaras P.W.2, and Naeem Ilyas as P.W.3 as well as produced complaint Exh.P-A, Nikah Nama of the petitioner/accused with the complainant Exh.P-B, Nikah Nama of the petitioner/accused with Mst. Shabana Akhtar as Mark-A and closed her evidence.
5. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., in reply to a question as. to whether during existence of his marriage with the complainant, he contracted second marriage with Mst. Shabana Akhtarl daughter of Muhammad Ayub on 11-8-2004 without obtaining permission from the complainant and the Union Council concerned. Raja Muhammad Azram/ petitioner/accused stated as underp "I had filed a suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the complainant in the Court of Mr. Rai Muhammad Khan, learned Family Judge Gujar Khan wherein decree was passed in my favour and against the complainant and complainant was directed by the Court to live with me. But the complainant had not bothered to obey the decree of the Court. So I contracted second marriage." in reply to another question, the petitioner/accused further stated as under: "I admit the genuineness of both the Nikah Namas/documents as correct. However, second wife has been divorced by me. Complaint Exh.P-A is based on false and fake story."
6. The petitioner/accused also examined himself on oath as his own witness as DW-1 and produced Maqsood Begum as DW-2 as well as copy of decision of Civil Court Mark-A in his defence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that both the courts below have passed the impugned judgment sentencing the petitioner/accused without discussing the evidence of the case. They did not give any weight to the fact that the petitioner/accused got second marriage after 17 years of his first marriage and the fact that before solemnizing the second marriage, he got permission from his first wife/Jamila Banaras and her father and the fact diat they had never objected over the same. Both the courts below also ignored the defence evidence produced by the petitioner/accused. It is, therefore, prayed that the revision may be accepted, impugned judgment and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused be set aside and he be acquitted from the charge.
8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and have also gone through the documents available on the file.
9. .Sections 6(1) and 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 read as under. , "6. Polygamy.-(1) No man, during the subsistence of an existing marriage, shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the Arbitration Council, contract another marriage, nor shall any such marriage contracted without such permission be registered 'under this Ordinance.
It is well settled principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond any shadow of 'doubt and for awarding sentence/penalty to any person, his guilt is to be proved through reliable evidence.
To prove this case, P.W.1 Jamila Banaras, first wife of the petitioner/accused deposed that the petitioner/accused neither returned the dowry nor paid any maintenance to the children. In this regard when she herself contacted him, she came to know that on 11-8-2004, the petitioner/' accused has contracted second marriage with Mst. Shabana Akhtar daughter of Muhammad Ayub without her permission and the permission of. the Arbitration Council.
(2) . ------------------------- ------------- ....------------------
(5) Any man who contracts another marriage without the permission of the Arbitration Council shall:
(a) pay immediately the entire amount of dower, whether prompt or deferred, due to the existing wife or wives, which amount, if not so paid shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue; and
(b) on conviction upon complaint be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both."
10. It is well settled principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond any shadow of 'doubt and for awarding sentence/penalty to any person, his guilt is to be proved through reliable evidence.
11 . To prove this case, P.W.1 Jamila Banaras, first wife of the petitioner/accused deposed that the petitioner/accused neither returned the dowry nor paid any maintenance to the children. In this(3) regard when she herself contacted him, she came to know that on 11-8-2004, the petitioner/' accused has contracted second marriage with Mst. Shabana Akhtar daughter of Muhammad Ayub without her permission and the permission of. the Arbitration Council.
P.W.2. Raja Muhammad Banaras/ father of respondent No.l/Complainant and P.W.3 Naeem Ilyas also corroborated the statement of respondent No.l/complainant by stating that the petitioner/accused has contracted second marriage without the permission of respondent No. 1/complainant and the Arbitration Council.
Statements of the P.Ws, remained unshattered and unshaken during cross- examination. They ring the truth and worthy of reliance.
While .examining on oath as his own witness, D.W.l Raja Muhammad Azram petitioner/accused categorically admitted during cross-examination that:-- \j/ c- &2-- jt(jy ~ & j b < J, X In view of above admission, the guilt of die petitioner/accused for contracting second marriage without getting its permission from the Arbitration Council under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Both the A courts below have discussed each piece of prosecution evidence and considered every aspect of the case and rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner/accused is guilty of the charge.
As regard the quantum of sentence, I find that both the courts below had already taken very lenient view in the matter. There is no valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by both the Courts below.
12. Tlxe^ upshot of the above discussion is that criminal revision has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the District Police Officer Rawalpindi with the direction to arrest Raja Muhammad Azram/ petitioner/accused and sent him to District Jail Adiala to serve out the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him in this case.