1. The facts giving rise to this petition under section 561/A, Cr. P. C. briefly are that Muhammad Shah, petitioner, and Mst. Yasmin, respondent No. 2, were admittedly married on the 6th of July 1960.
2. According to the petitioner he divorced her on the 13th of May 1961, and sought to be established by a certified copy of the relevant entry from the register of the petition-writer placed on the record.
3. Notwithstanding this the respondent brought a suit for dissolution of marriage which was decreed on the 22nd of January 1962. On the 20th of April 1962, she moved an application before the Chairman of the Union Commit tee under section 6 of Ordinance VIII of 1961, seeking restoration of her dower as also for proceedings against the petitioner for having contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with her. It appears that without constituting an Arbitration Council the Chairman directed the petitoner to pay the divorcee a sum of Rs. 5,000 on account of dower and also proceeded to convict him with an award of six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under section 6 (5) (b) of the Ordinance. Feeling aggrieved he preferred a revision petition before the Controlling Authority which was accepted. It was, however, directed that the Chairman should lodge a complaint against the petitoner for having contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the respondent. In compliance with this order the Chairman filed a complaint on the 7th of January 1964, against the petitoner himself. These are the proceedings which are sought to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel contends, firstly, that the factum of divorce stands fully established by documentary evidence according to which the petitioner had divorced the respondent as far back as the 13th of May 1961. Secondly, that even if this position may be hied to be doubful, under Rule 21 of the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, the complaint is to be made by the Union Council and not by the Chairman as it has happened in the instant case.
4. Reliance is placed in this regard on Muhammad Islam v. The State (1) which appears to be directly in point. Accordingly 1 allow this petition and quash the proceedings. .
(1) PLD 1967 Pesh. 201