' On 7-1-1988 Mst. Farhat Jehan instituted a suit for jactitation of marriage in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur with the powers of Judge Family Court. It was alleged therein that she was abducted by Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah alongwith his accomplices, that she was recovered by the Police on 27-9-1987; that when she was with Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah, she was coerced to affix her thumb-impression on certain documents which were changed into Nikahnama. It was further alleged that the aforesaid instrument of Nikah was prepared under duress, was without any lawful authority and that the respondents be restrained from calling her/his wife.
2. The suit was resisted. It was pleaded in written statement that the plaintiff was sui juris; that she had contracted nikah with her own free will; that she had made statement before the Magistrate as well as before the High Court without any pressure and coercion and contracted marriage of her own accord. Iqbal Hussain Shah (herein respondent) also filed a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Family Judge, Vehari. The aforesaid suit was transferred to the Court of Family Judge, Bahawalpur. Both the suits were consolidated and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for jactitation of marriage?
(2) Whether the thumb-impression and signatures of the plaintiff were obtained by coercion on the Nikahnama?
(3) Whether the consent of the plaintiff on Nikahnama was not free?
(4) Whether the plaintiff was abducted by the defendant and his companions?
(5) Whether the defendant is entitled to get a decree for restitution of conjugal rights?
(6) Relief.
3. The parties led their evidence. Upon the consideration of the evidence, adduced by the parties the learned Judge Family Court, Bahawalpur by judgment and decree dated 4-6-1989 decreed the suit for the jactitation of marriage and also dismissed the suit for the restitution of conjugal rights by coming to the conclusion that the Nikahnama was executed under coercion and duress.
4. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment, Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur by means of judgment and decree dated 22- 1-1991.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised following points:-
(i) It was contended that the Family Court under Section 5 of the West Pakistan Faimly Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) was not competent to decide a suit pertaining to the plea of declaration to the effect that Nikahnama registered under the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) was under duress and coercion. The Family Court was only competent to decide the suit for jactitation of marriage. In the present case the suit was filed for seeking declaration regarding instrument of Nikah duly registered under the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
Reliance was placed on Nazar Qasim v. Mst. Shaista Parveen (1979 CLC 462) and Malla v. Mst.
Jawai etc. (1981 CLC 1097).
(ii) It was next contended that under section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the validity of marriages registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 cannot be questioned before the Family Court. No other point was urged.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned decision on merits. It was contended that both the Courts below have recorded the findings on the relevant issues after taking into consideration the necessary evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length and after carefully taking into consideration the points made by the petitioner, I am clear in my mind that the contentions of the petitioner are without any force. It is apparent from the statement of Mst. Farhat Jehan that she was abducted by the use of force; that her thumb impression was got affixed by force. She was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination and she firmly denied having consented to the nikah with the present petitioner. Iqbal Hussain Shah admitted in cross-examination that the case under the provisions of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) was pending {{ BLUR PAGE }} 'against him; that he was on bail. In the context of aforesaid circumstances both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the Nikahnama was obtained under duress. The only point calling for determination is "whether the Judge Family Court was competent to decide the suit". This point came up for consideration in Mst. Amina Begum v. Ghulam Nabi and 2 others (PLD 1974 Lahore 78). After taking into consideration the dictionary meaning of words "Jactitation of marriage" and the relevant provisions of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, his Lordship Mr. Justice Aftab Hussain as he then was, laid down: "The object of the Act is to give exclusive jurisdiction to the Family 4.3(1'1.6 "'Courts in all matters relating to marriage. A suit for affirmative vd lilill"wkreclaration about existence or subsistence of marriage is as much a suit relating to marriage as a suit 'for the negative declaration. The wider pni,poiro expresi,j`Jactitation of marriage' will, therefore, advance the object of the Act. On principle also there appears to be no difference between a case where the party aggrieved against the false claild'e6mes to the Court first ffrrthelot-hi&party invokes the jurisdiction Of-the Court. I do not see any why Suitior jactitation of marriage wililnOiiiiefude by a-peTtiin,falsely posing that he is 8we'J tikse of theilefendant.'411 iii0ksiilitiliiretAailation as to the status 'ir"c:" t)Ef'here one party alleges marliartklitii &Witkinks, it will amount to -tradirtfifti 'i.Decree for jactitation of tniiiiititge.11::)13(1m03 'Ono 8ailyinK aew iiue "-{1J peu5 In52Jlq ifingxiqw wAf9,119.1yed in Nazar Qasitri: y.i/v1611milgerr 9RgraVpplp L C 462)
411419110311"t3JP,wai etc. a'vrrik \,fiatti. Ilienekt 'question as tervAletiter Seetibill2.3Via kil6dication of validity of a marriage registered under the proviskiked:MitsliieFamily Laws of,1961)", was answerecliin Nazar Qasiny,.A44.,haistaI)arveen pi462) and Malla v. Mg. Jawaitc. (19&1 qcticAnnyytierein it was ylitketickthA; tlipAlispute rel4ing tgfaj*. Ntamage laymkplbs vAtit t.Lpipjimisdietion of Family Court and Section 53 of the vy,5,4Taiistla filniklx.Cofrioef was not a bar to such suit. Girls lo 11,srl3d no. 9.Niulogor ,bnpri /orb nO pAj abirAnam 4,vrcispg-Afult 4greppent withutIte vemfittics44Mhcoforenoted ioRt4.9fig.es4P14YingiftihRtfaiiktiihltdwn iiLtitS:.#9KFW4i61155sMuti#5 451s#101e e case it is quite clear that theJulgsf atrtilygsttArIvAlcsmetimcftallsjto whether the instrument of Nikah said to have been executed in favour of present -4;utinkily-9Ekihrit as- ,ell as 3fifirgfa6effiteldifirfliziver(ithi. a1criliefifidingit4thglikigiVoffAhijithe fl&Itided fibtlf4etithtol eteeption ; in 4iaVell4eirvitittklyby latittifilf brtruagtich Wiivad lo.sansl1OJ To ennizivoig orli lobnit Leo odt Ssril noitsnimexo-umo ni honimbr, gnibrtog 2LW (QVQI In IIV) JnsnibiO (boobuli lo mornooloina) traiS
10. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this pettish which is dismissed. The petitioner shall bear the costs of proceedings in this Court.