' Instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.0 has been filed for the quashment of proceedings emanating from a complaint lodged by complainant-respondent No,2 (Mst. Shazia) under section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws, 1961 and pending in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class (respondent No,1) and for further declaration to the effect that section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws, 1961 being repugnant to the order of Qur'an and Sunnah, be declared a bad law.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that complainant/respondent No,2 (Mst. Shazia lkram) was married with accused/petitioner Muhammad Ijaz Qureshi on 14-4-1997. During the subsistence of first marriage, her husband/petitioner contracted second marriage with Mst. Robina Qureshi on 25-6- 1998 without seeking her permission and without obtaining permission from the Conciliation Council. She accordingly lodged a complaint under section 6(5) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Rawalpindi.
3. On the receipt of said complaint the trial Court recorded the statement of complainant/respondent No,2 and thereafter adjourned the matter for preliminary evidence. The preliminary evidence was recorded on 18-8-1999 and matter was adjourned to 24-8-1999, for further order. Consequently on 24-8-1999 the trial Court found that accused/petitioner has committed an offence under section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The accused/ petitioner has felt aggrieved of this order and filed the instant writ petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner is that impugned order dated 24-8-1999 is based on the evidence which has been recorded by the Reader of the Court as such it violates the mandatory provisions of section 356, Cr.P.C. His next contention is that provisions of section 6 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.), so it be declared as such. In support of his contentions he has relied upon Muhammad Ali Qazi and another v. The State and 3 others 1994 PCr.LJ 430, Ghulam Abbas v. Inayat Ullah and another PLD 1976 Lah. 1555, Abdul Rehman and others v. The State PLD 1983 SC 73, Muhammad Sarwar v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 1950 Lah.
274, Abdur Rahman v. Allah Diwaya PLD 1950 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 96, Rehmat Khan and another v.
The Crown PLD 1951 Lah. 228, Abdul Hameed v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 949, Shaukat Hussain v. Mst.
Rubina and others PLD 1989 Kar.513 and Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum and others PLD 1988 Kar.
169.
6. In the instant writ petition two different reliefs have been sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His first relief pertains to violation of provisions of section 356, Cr.P.C. His second relief pertains to declaration of section 6 of Muslim Family Laws, 1961 to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and the Holy Qur'an and A Sunnah. So far as the second relief is concerned, suffice it to say that said relief can only be obtained from the Federal Shariat Court, as provided under Article 203- D of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. So far as the first relief pertaining to violation of section 356, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, it is pertinent to point out that impugned order is not covered under the provisions of section 356(1), Cr.P.C. The provisions of section 356(1), Cr.P.C. Pertain to record in trial before Court of Session and in enquiry under Chapter XII. In the instant case the complaint has been filed under section 200 and subsequent proceedings have been initiated under sections 202, 203 and 204, Cr.P.C. The Chapter XII to which section 356(1), Cr.P.C. Relates, pertains to disputes as to immovable property and it covers sections 145 to 148, Cr.P.C. Thus, the provisions of section 356(1), Cr.P.C. Are not applicable to the instant case.
8. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that provisions of section 356, Cr.P.C. Are attracted in the instant case, even then this section does not come to the rescue of the accused/petitioner, as there is nothing on the record to prove that the statement of the complainant/respondent No,2 recorded under section 200, Cr.P.C. By the Magistrate (respondent No,1) was not recorded in his own handwriting. In the authorities referred by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner one thing stands established that the record complained of had not been maintained under the handwriting of the concerned Judicial Officer. Thus, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner are not applicable to the facts in hand,
9. The trial Court/respondent No,1 has simply summoned the accused/petitioner to appear and answer the allegation levelled against him. The best course availabel to him is to make his appearance in the Court and put up his contentions before the said Court so as to allow an opportunity to the complainant/respondent No,2. To rebut his contentions and then to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed in limine.