This order will dispose of two Revisions Petitions Nos. 810 and 911 of 1963. They -have arisen in the following circum--stances.
Muhammad Nazir Husain, the petitioner in Cr. R. No. 810 of 1963 was married to Mst. Iftikhar Bano, respondent No. 1. The spouses fell out and Muhammad Nazir Husain intimated the Chairman of the Union Council concerned that he had divorced his wife. The Chairman formed an Arbitration Council and issued notice under subsection (4) of section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Mst. Iftikhar Bano appeared before the Arbitration Council on 10th of August 1962, and stated, inter alia, that her parents-in-law had informed her that her husband was carrying on with the wife of one Asif Ali. Malik Nazir Hassan, respondent No. 2 stated before the Union Council on 10th of August 1962, that Mst. Iftikhar Bano was related to him and she had come to him and informed him that else had been driven out of her house without any money.She wanted this witness to pay her some money on account of the bus fare, which he did. On a question put to him by the Arbitration Council, he stated that he was informed by his relatives that Muhammad Nazir Hussain was carrying on with the wife of a person named Asif, and that was why he refrained from taking Mst.
Iftikhar Bano back to the house of her husband. The Arbitration Council finally came to a decision on 17 of September 1962 and wrote an order wherein the statements made by Mst. Iftikhar Bano and Malik Nazir Hassan with regard to the liaison of the petitioner with the wife of one Asif were reproduced have seen that order and find that there is no ultimate finding on this particular allegation.
2. Two complaints were filed under section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code, one by Muhammad Nazir Husain petitioner and the other by Asif. The learned Magistrate observed that Mst. Iftikharth Bano and Malik Nazir Hassan were protected under the law because they had appeared as witnesses in the case. As for Syed Moazzam Ali Shah, he held that the case fell within the ambit of seventh Exception to section 499, P.P.C. This Exception provides that any observation by a person in authority made in good faith did not amount to defamation. It was further observed by the learned Magistrate that there were no particulars with regard to Asif Ali and it was difficult to find out if Asif Ali mentioned by Mst. Iftikhar Bano and Malik Nazir Hassan was the same person who had filed the complaint.
Two revisions were taken against the order of the learned Magistrate to the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. Sher Bahadur Khan observed that the case of the respondents was covered by Exceptions 7 and 9 to section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
3, The main contention on which these two revisions were admitted was that the Courts below were not right in postu--lating as to what possible defence was open to the respondents. It has further been argued before me that under subsection (4) of section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, the Chairman or for matter of that the Arbitration Council had no power to take any proceedings in the matter. Perhaps the object of this contention is to canvass the argument that the Arbitration Council did not act within its powers and no protection is available to it.
4. As to the first contention, I may observe that the Courts below were quite right in holding that the action of the reason--dents was protected. Mst. Iftikhar Bano had made a statement in due course of Law before an authority created by the statute for that particular purpose. Nazir Hassan appeared in support of the statement of Mst. Iftikhar Bano I find from the record that an arbitrator was appointed by Nazir Hussain petitioner but there was no refutation of the factual allegations made. This would show acquiescence on his part. So far as the Chairman is concerned, he did not give any finding on this aspect of the case. The order purports to be on behalf of the Arbitration Council. It was within its powers to C reproduce the submissions made to it.
5. The contention that the Arbitration Council had no authority to take any proceedings in the case and narrate the allegations made before it has no force. It appears that before advancing this submission, the learned counsel had not adverted to the rules, which have been framed by the Provincial Government under section 11 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. It is mentioned in rule 6 that when a petition is moved before the Chairman under section 7 of the above Ordinance, the Chairman shall by order in writing call upon each of the parties to nominate his or her representative. Again, rule 17 gays that where the Arbitration Council has given its decision under rule 6, the record of the proceedings shall be forwarded by the Chairman to the office of the Union Council where it shall be preserved for a period of five years from the -date of decision. These rules clearly show that the Arbitration Council is called upon under the law to take proceedings and give a finding and the record of these proceedings is to be kept for five years. Even if these rules were not there, I would say "that the mere reading of section 7 of the above Ordinance, would show that the Chairman ---------'$ or for matter of that the Arbitration Council had all the implied powers to make an enquiry to fulfil the duty imposed on them by the law. They were not expected by the Legislature just to sit idle.
6. I also find force in the observation of the Courts below that the identity of Asif Ali was not sufficiently revealed by Mst. Iftikhar Bano or Malik Nazir Hassan and, therefore, it is not possible to say that he is the aggrieved person in the proceedings. With these observations, I dismiss both the revision petitions. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.