This petition emanates out of the marriage between Muhammad Yousuf petitioner and Mst.
Maryam Bibi daughter of respondent No. 2. The contents of the petition were noted in my order dated 3rd February. 1980 whereby I had restrained the respondents from taking any action on the complaint of respondent No. 2, against the petitioner or his were.
2. On 26th February. 1980 an application was presented on behalf of the petitioner being C. M. No. 1 of 1980, in which it was avered that despite the order of this Court dated 3rd February, 1980, the petitioner as well as his were were summoned by the Headquarter SMLA, Sahiwal through the S. H.
O. Police Station, Chauchak and made, to appear before respondent No. 1 who handed over Mst.
Maryam Bibi to her parents and directed the S. H. O. To register a case against the petitioner. It is further stated in the application that thereafter Mst. Maryam Bibi was forced to sign an F. I. R.
Against her husband which was registered at Police Station Chauchak under Ordinance VII of 1979.
It was stated in the petition that Mst. Maryam Bibi had escaped from the custody of her parents and had joined the petitioner once again.
3. Mst. Maryam Bibi was present in this Court on 1st March, 1980 when C. M. No. 1/80 was taken up for hearing and her statement was recorded on that day in which she stated that she was 18/19 years of age and married the petitioner of her own free will. She also stated before this Court that she was produced before an Officer of the Martial Law Authorities Sahiwal and was forced to make a statement before the Magistrate and made to accompany her father. She also stated that she was forced to sign a statement against her husband on the basis of which a case was registered against him.
4. I had directed the appearance of the S. H. O. Police Station Chauchak. Shamsul Haq S. I. S. H. O.
Police Station is present in Court today alongwith the record. I had directed the S. H. O. To produce Ilam Din respondent No. 2, the father of Mst. Maryam Bibi. He is also present in Court today.
5. The case was taken up early in the morning when I thought that it would be appropriate in the circumstances to allow the father and daughter to talk amongst themselves, which they did for almost four hours. I have taken up this case again at 1-00 p.m.
6. From the record and statements made before me by Mst. Maryam Bibi, her father Ilam Din respondent No. 2 and Shamsul Haq S. H. O. Police Station Chauchak who had also brought the record with him, it appears that Jam Din and Yousaf petitioner belong to the same village and are teachers. I had been stated by Mst. Maryam Bibi that she married Yousaf on her own accord on 24th February, 1979 and has been living with him since then. It appears that Ilam Din the father of Mst. Maryam Bibi was not agreeable to the marriage and he made complaints to various authorities including Martial Law Authorities and Police alleging that his daughter had been abducted by Yousaf petitioner. In this connection Mst. Maryam Bibi filed Writ Petition No. 659/80 before this Court which came up for hearing before my learned brother Manzoor Hussain Sial, J. On 21February, 1980 who after noting the contentions of learned counsel for Mst. Maryam Bibi, that she had married Yousaf petitioner on 24th February, 1979 and that she desired to stay with her husband and that she had made a statement before Judge Family Court Okara to this effect and that the S. H. O. Police Station Renala Khurd was harassing her at the instance of her father, directed the S. H. O. Not to harass the petitioner or her husband and to proceed only in accordance with the law.
7. On 2nd February, 1980 the present petition was instituted which came up for hearing before me on 3rd February, 1980 when I after noting the contentions of learned counsel called for a report from the S. M. L. A. Sahiwal and also directed that no action shall be taken on the complaint of respondent No. 2 against the petitioner or his were Mst. Maryam Bibi. It was thereafter that C. M. No. 1/1980 was -presented before this Court.
8. It is admitted by Ilam Din respondent No. 2 that on 9th February, 1980 he appeared before the Martial Law Authorities Sahiwal who had directed the production of Mst. Maryam Bibi before them and that the Martial Law Authorities thereafter ordered Mst. Maryam Bibi to accompany her father.
It further appears that on 12th February, 1980 an application in the handwriting of Ilam Din was presented to the S. H. O. Police Chuchak which is signed at the bottom by Mst. Maryam Bibi whereupon he registered an F. I. R. No. 35/80 on the same day. Mst. Maryam Bibi was in the company of her father at that time and thereafter on 18th February, 1980 the Investigating Officer got her statement recorded before a learned Magistrate. It appears that on 25th February, 1980 when Ilam Din was away from his house Mst. Maryam Bibi rejoined her bus--band, Yousaf petitioner.
9. It is apparent from the narration of facts given above that the proceedings before the Martial Law Authorities on 9th February, 1980 and the recording of the F. I. R. On the basis of an application presented in the handwriting of Ilam Din and the recording of the statement of Mst. Maryam Bibi under section 164, Cr. P. C. On 18th February, 1980 were done in complete violation of the restraining order issued by me on 3rd February. 1980. Before me, learned counsel for the respondent urged that neither his client nor the Police were aware of this order but I am not prepared to believe this because after a restraining order is obtained by a party, there is no reason why it would not be used by it when the action sought to be restrained is initiated.
10. In these circumstances the recording of the F. I. R. The investi--gation and the statement under section 154, Cr. P. C. Being in violation of the order of this Court are quashed. It may be added here that before me Mst. Maryam Bibi, stated that the F. I. R. Was got recorded by her father respondent No. 2 who was exercising influence upon her and she denied the veracity of F. I. R. As well as thest statement made by her before the Magistrate under section 164, Cr. P. C. She has also stated that she married Yousaf petitioner of her own free will and accord and in fact has further stated that at the time of marriage it had the consent of her father though the father denies this.
11. She has further stated in Court that she desires to live with her husband and she has made this statement after having opportunity of talking with her father for more than four hours. Her father has also stated that he has been able to persuade his daughter to accompany him.
12. With the above observations, the petition is accepted in the terms noted above. Disposed of.