1. ' By this revision application the petitioner Riaz Hussain has called in question the order of Vth Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood), dated 14-10-1984 whereby the direct complaint filed by the said petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Riaz Hussain was married to respondent Mst. Jamila Khatoon and from this wedlock three daughters were born. Subsequently differences arose between the parties and the respondent wife filed suit for dissolution of her marriage. She also filed a separate suit for maintenance. On the other hand the petitioner filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights. All the three suits between the parties were consolidated and disposed of by Extra Joint Civil Judge, Hyderabad. The suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed. Aggrieved by this decision of the civil Court, the petitioner filed Constitution Petition No, S-35 of 1983 in the High Court.
3. Pending the disposal of the petition, he applied for stay seeking to restrain the respondent Mst.
4. Jamila from contracting second marriage. On his application for the stay the following order was passed:- "Learned counsel for respondent No,1 wants time to file counter-affidavit. However he states that respondent No, 1 has no intention to re-marry at present. In these circumstances it is not necessary to pass any order on interim application. The case may be fixed for regular hearing at an early date and R.&.P. Of Suit No, 174 of 1982 may be called for."
5. ' However the respondent Mst. Jamila Khatoon re-married in violation of the above order. The petitioner, therefore, filed a direct complaint praying for action against the said lady and her second husband under Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 as their marriage being illegal they were said to have committed the offence of Zina. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence as well as the documents involved in the case dismissed the complaint. It is against the said order of dismissal that the present revision application has been filed.
6. ' After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at great length the revision application was dismissed by short order, dated 24-2-1985. Following are the reasons in support of the said short order.
7. ' It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the interim order, dated 26-5-1983 passed by this Court, which has been reproduced above, was in fact a stay order and the marriage contracted by respondent Mst. Jamila Khatoon in violation of that order was void and as such both the said respondent lady and her second husband were liable for the offence of Zina.
8. ' It is an admitted position that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent Mst. Jamila Khatoon stood dissolved as soon as the latter's suit for dissolution of marriage on account of non- maintenance for three years was decreed. No appeal was competent against the decision of dissolution of marriage. However, the petitioner challenged the said decision in writ petition but that too was dismissed and the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order:- "The judgment and decree, dated 26-3-1983 of the learned II-Extra Joint Civil Judge, Hyderabad is amended as follows:
(a) The decree of dissolution of marriage on account of non-maintenance for three years is set aside. However, the decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula' is maintained.
(b) .............................................................................................................................
(c) .............................................................................................................................
9. ' The contention of the learned counsel however, was that the respondent could not re-marry during operation of the stay order reproduced above and since by contracting second marriage she and her second husband had contravened the said order, they were liable for offence of Zina.
10. On careful perusal of the stay order in question, it would appear that the Court had not prohibited the respondent lady from re-marriage. The order shows that in view of the respondent lady's statement that she had no intention to re-marry for the present, the learned Single Judge refrained from passing any order on interim application (for stay). In other words the stay application seeking to restrain the Mst. Jamila Khatoon from contracting second marriage was not granted. In view of this factual position the said order could not be construed to have placed any restriction on the respondent's lady's second marriage. At best her statement that she had no intention to marry was in the nature of commitment to the Court. If she is proved to have broken the commitment she could be proceeded against and punished for contempt of Court. In fact the petitioner is stated to have already taken out contempt proceedings and the same are said to be still pending.
11. ' The material point to be considered for disposal of this revision application however, is whether the respondent lady contracted second marriage while her first marriage with the petitioner was still subsisting. As stated above the respondent lady's first marriage was revoked following the passing of decree in her suit for dissolution of marriage. It is not shown that the said decree was either set aside or suspended prior to her second marriage. The petitioner does claim that during pendency of his writ petition, the decree for annulment of his marriage with the respondent lady was suspended. It seems the decree of dissolution of marriage remained intact until it received further approval from the High Court as stated above. Therefore, it could not be argued that the second marriage of the respondent lady was illegal and hence an offence. The direct complaint was accordingly without substance and was rightly dismissed. No interference was called for and, therefore, revision application was dismissed.