Property rights after khulla before divorce certificate.
مرنے والے شوہر کی جائیداد، بیوہ سرٹیفکیٹ طلاق جاری نہ ھونے کے باوجود حصہ نہ لے سکی۔
پس منظر:
Petitioner، مرحوم شفقات علی کا بھائی، درخواست گزار ہے۔
شفقات علی نے Mst. Sadia Jafari (Respondent No.3) سے شادی کی تھی۔
شادی کے دوران مسائل پیدا ہوئے اور خاتون نے خلا (Khula) کے لیے فیملی کورٹ میں 2016 میں مقدمہ دائر کیا، جو exparte (حاضری کے بغیر) فیصلہ ہوا۔
فیصلے کے بعد یونین کونسل، گو جرا کو مطلع کیا گیا تاکہ مفاہمت (Reconciliation) کی کوشش کی جائے۔
خاتون نے 28.9.2016 کو affidavit/بیان حلفی جمع کروایا کہ مفاہمت ہو گئی ہے، لیکن شوہر نے نہ اس پر دستخط کیے اور نہ حاضری دی۔
بعد میں، یونین کونسل تحلیل ہو گئی اور میونسپل کمیٹی نے اس کا اختیار سنبھالا۔
قانونی مسئلہ:
اہم سوال: خلع کا فیصلہ، جو 28.5.2016 کو ہوا، کیا 90 دن کے بعد خود بخود مؤثر (Effective) ہو گیا یا نہیں؟ اور کیا میونسپل کمیٹی کو Divorce Effectiveness Certificate جاری کرنا چاہیے یا اسے اسلامی کونسل کے پاس بھیج دینا چاہیے؟
عدالت کی رائے:
Section 7 اور 8 Family Court Act, 1964:
طلاق یا خلع کا فیصلہ 90 دن بعد مؤثر ہوتا ہے اگر مفاہمت نہ ہو۔
مفاہمت نہ ہونے کی صورت میں یونین کونسل / میونسپل کمیٹی کو سرٹیفیکیٹ جاری کرنا لازمی ہے۔
Section 21 اور 21B (Punjab Amendment):
فیملی کورٹ کی طرف سے فیصلہ چیئرمین کو بھیجنے کے بعد 90 دن کی مدت شروع ہوتی ہے۔
افیڈیویٹ میں شوہر کی عدم شرکت یا دستخط کی کمی مفاہمت نہیں مانتی۔
اسلامی کونسل کا کردار:
آرٹیکل 230 کے تحت صرف مشاورتی ہے، ذاتی تنازعات میں اس کی سفارش ضروری نہیں۔
فیصلہ:
خلع کا فیصلہ 90 دن کے بعد مؤثر ہو گیا تھا۔
میونسپل کمیٹی نے غلطی کی کہ وہ اسلامی کونسل بھیجنے کا کہا۔
عدالت نے 30.6.2021 کا حکم منسوخ کر دیا اور Divorce Effectiveness Certificate جاری کرنے کا حکم دیا۔
اہم قانونی نکات:
- Exparte خلع کے بعد اگر مفاہمت نہ ہو، تو 90 دن بعد طلاق مؤثر ہو جاتی ہے۔
- افیڈیویٹ یا بیان حلفی جو ایک طرفہ ہو، مفاہمت کے طور پر نہیں مانا جاتا۔
- یونین کونسل یا میونسپل کمیٹی کا کام صرف سرٹیفیکیشن ہے، فیصلہ یا خلع کو منسوخ کرنا ان کا اختیار نہیں۔
- اسلامی کونسل کے پاس ذاتی تنازعات بھیجنے کی ضرورت نہیں۔
حوالہ مقدمات:
Muhammad Ishaque vs. Ch. Ahsan Ahmad (PLD 1975 Lahore 1118) – یونین کونسل صرف سرٹیفیکیشن کرے۔
Muhammad Afzal Khan vs. Chairman Arbitration Council (2018 CLC 1125) –
مفاہمت نہ ہونے پر سرٹیفیکیٹ لازمی۔
Almas Mubashar vs. Mubashar Hanif (PLD 2014 Lahore 494) – خلع خود بخود 90 دن کے بعد مؤثر۔
خلاصہ:
خلع کا فیصلہ مؤثر ہو گیا کیونکہ 90 دن کے اندر مفاہمت نہیں ہوئی۔
میونسپل کمیٹی کو Divorce Effectiveness Certificate جاری کرنا چاہیے۔
افیڈیویٹ میں شوہر کی عدم موجودگی مفاہمت کا ثبوت نہیں۔
اسلامی کونسل میں بھیجنا ضروری نہیں۔
Must read Judgement
Stereo. HCJDA.38.
Judgment Sheet.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
Case No. W.P.No.70550/2021
Liaqat Ali
Versus
Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Gojra etc
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing
19.10.2022.
Petitioner by
M/S Abid Saqi and Muddassar Farooq,
Advocates.
Respondent No.3
by
Respondents No.1
and 2 by
Mr. Akhtar Abbas Rizvi, Advocate.
Rana Zain Tahir, AAG along with Sh.
Muhammad Javed, Advocate/Legal
Advisor of Municipal Committee, Gojra,
Ishtiaque Ahmad Gondal, Chief Officer,
Municipal Committee, Gojra and
Muhammad Hafeez ur Rehman, Legal
Assistant, Municipal Committee, Gojra.
Amicus Curiae
Khawaja Isaam Bin Haris, Advocate.
Abid Aziz Sheikh, J.- In this constitutional
petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
30.6.2021 passed by Chief Officer, Municipal
Committee, Gojra (respondent No.1) whereby it is held
that Municipal Committee has no jurisdiction in the
instant matter for issuing Divorce Effectiveness
Certificate (Certificate) and parties were advised to
W.P.No.70550/2021
2
approach Council of Islamic Ideology (Islamic Council)
for resolution of their dispute.
2.
Relevant facts are that petitioner is a real brother
of deceased Shafqat Ali who got married with Mst. Sadia
Jafari (respondent No.3) on 07.10.2010 but due to strain
relationship, on 13.4.2016, respondent No.3 filed suit for
dissolution of marriage before learned Judge Family
Court, Faisalabad which was exparte decreed in her
favour vide judgment dated 28.5.2016. The said decree
was received by the erstwhile Union Council, Gojra
(Union Council) on 27.8.2016 and notices were issued to
the parties for constitution of Arbitration Council for the
purpose of bringing reconciliation between the parties for
29.9.2016. The respondent No.3 on 28.9.2016 submitted
her affidavit (affidavit) to the Union Council to the effect
that parties have reconciled, however, neither said
affidavit was signed by Shafqat Ali (husband) nor he
appeared before the Chairman/Administrator Union
Council to affirm the reconciliation. Subsequently, the
Union Council was dissolved and jurisdiction was
conferred upon Municipal Committee, Gojra (Municipal
Committee). The matter was again taken up by
W.P.No.70550/2021
3
Municipal Committee on 09.9.2017 and notices were
issued to husband and respondent No.3 for 12.10.2017.
The said notices could not be served upon respondent
No.3 and husband refused service of notices. The notices
were repeated on 16.11.2017 which were once again
refused by the husband, however, respondent No.3
appeared and again recorded her statement unilaterally to
the effect that parties have reconciled, hence she does
not want to proceed in the matter and certificate may not
be issued. Thereafter, no further proceedings were taken
by the Municipal Committee, however, on 13.6.2021,
husband (Shafqat Ali) was passed away and petitioner
approached the respondent No.1 on 22.6.2021 for
issuance of certificate. The said request was resisted by
respondent No.3, hence impugned order dated 30.6.2021
was passed by respondent No.1, which has been assailed
through this constitutional petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
after decree for dissolution of marriage dated 28.5.2016,
the same became effective automatically after expiry of
90 days as reconciliation was not effected between the
parties. He submits that affidavit of respondent No.3
W.P.No.70550/2021
4
dated 28.9.2016 submitted to Union Council is not only
unilateral but also a bogus document. He explained that
after the decree for khula dated 28.5.2016, respondent
No.3 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance
against husband which was exparte decreed on
30.6.2017. He submits that husband during his life time
filed application to set aside the aforesaid exparte
judgment and decree and asserted that divorce was
already effected through decree of khula dated 28.5.2016
and affidavit before Union Council is also one sided
bogus document. He submits that though husband passed
away on 13.6.2021, before the exparte judgment and
decree was set aside, however, his stance being already
available on record, there is no justification with
respondent No.1 to refuse issuance of certificate and refer
the matter to Islamic Council.
4.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the other
hand submits that parties had already reconciled before
expiry of 90 days from receipt of exparte khula decree
dated 28.5.2016, therefore, said decree became
ineffective, hence certificate could not be issued. In
support of his argument, learned counsel has placed
W.P.No.70550/2021
5
reliance on Muhammad Afzal Khan vs. Chairman
Arbitration Council etc (2018 CLC 1125). The learned
Law Officer and learned counsel for the Municipal
Committee reiterated the above facts and supported the
impugned order.
5.
Learned Amicus Curiae referred to various
relevant provisions of law and case law to assist this
Court on the proposition in hand.
6.
I have heard respective contentions of learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record with their
able assistance.
7.
There is no dispute that the exparte decree for
khula was passed on 28.5.2016 and same was also
received by the then Union Council on 27.8.2016. It is
also admitted position between the parties that before
expiry of 90 days from the receipt of decree, respondent
No.3 filed affidavit on 28.9.2016 to the effect that parties
have reconciled. It is also admitted on all hands that said
affidavit was only signed and thumb marked by
respondent No.3 whereas husband neither signed the said
affidavit nor appeared before Union Council or
Municipal Committee during his life time to support the
W.P.No.70550/2021
6
affidavit or above stance of respondent No.3. In the
above given facts, the main moot legal issue is “that
whether the decree of khula had already became effective
or not for the purpose of issuance of certificate”.
8.
In order to answer and determine the aforesaid
legal proposition, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant
provisions of section 7 and 8 of Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961 (Ordinance) and section 21 and 21-B
(Punjab Amendment) of the Family Court Act, 1964
(Act) as under:-
(Section 7 and 8 of the Ordinance)
S. 7. ‘Talaq’. (1) Any man who wishes to divorce his
wife shall, as soon as may be after the
pronouncement of talaq in any form whatsoever,
give the Chairman notice in writing of his having
done so, and shall supply a copy thereof to the wife.
(2) Whoever, contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) shall be punishable with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand
rupees, or with both.
(3) Save as provided in sub-section (5), a talaq,
unless revoked earlier, expressly or otherwise, shall
not be effective until the expiration of ninety days
from the day on which notice under sub-section (1)
is delivered to the Chairman.
(4) Within thirty days of the receipt of notice under
sub-section (1), the Chairman shall constitute an
Arbitration Council for the purpose of bringing
about a reconciliation between the parties, and the
Arbitration Council shall take all steps necessary to
bring about such reconciliation.
W.P.No.70550/2021
7
(5) If the wife be pregnant at the time of talaq is
pronounced, talaq shall not be effect until the period
mentioned in sub-section (3) or the pregnancy,
whichever be later, ends.
(6) Nothing shall debar a wife whose marriage has
been terminated by talaq effective under this section
from remarrying the same husband, without an
intervening marriage with a third person, unless
such termination is for the third time so effective.
S. 8. Dissolution of marriage otherwise than
by talaq. Where the right to divorce has been duly
delegated to the wife and she wishes to exercise that
right, or where any of the parties to a marriage
wishes to dissolves the marriage otherwise than
by talaq, the provisions of section 7 shall, mutatis
mutandis and so far as applicable, apply.
(Section 21 and 21B of the Act)
S. 21. Provisions of Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance to be applicable.— Nothing in this Act
shall be deemed to affect any of the provisions of
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, or the rules
framed thereunder and the provisions of section 7, 8,
9 and 10 of the said Ordinance shall be applicable to
any decree for the dissolution of marriage
solemnized under the Muslim Law, maintenance or
dower, by a Family Court.
(2) When a Family Court passes a decree for the
dissolution of a marriage solemnized under the
Muslim Law, the Court shall send by registered post
within seven days of passing such decree, a certified
copy of the same to the appropriate Chairman
referred to in S. 7 of the Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance 1961, and upon receipt of such copy, the
Chairman shall proceed as if he had received an
intimation of talaq, required to be given under the
said Ordinance.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any
other law, decree for dissolution of a marriage
solemnized under the Muslim Law shall:
(a)
not be effective until the expiration of ninety
days from the day on which a copy thereof has been
sent under sub-section (2) to the Chairman;
W.P.No.70550/2021
8
(b)
be of no effect if within the period specified in
clause (a) reconciliation has been effected between
the parties in accordance with provisions of the
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
Punjab Amendment.
S. 21-B. Intimation to Arbitration Council.– If a
Family Court decrees dissolution of a Muslim
marriage, the Family Court shall immediately but
not later than three days from the decree send by
registered post or other means a certified copy of the
decree to the concerned Chairman of the Arbitration
Council and upon receipt of the decree, the
Chairman shall proceed as if he had received
intimation of Talaq under the Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961).
9.
The conjunctive reading of section 7 and 8 of the
Ordinance shows that before promulgation of the Act, in
order for a decree of dissolution of marriage to be
effective, the wife must serve notice of the decree upon
the Chairman of the Arbitration Council (Chairman) and
inform the husband. However, in view of section 21(2) of
the Act, the onus to inform Chairman of such a decree
was on the Family Court and upon received of a decree,
the Chairman shall proceed if he had received intimation
of Talaq under the Act. For the purpose of Province of
Punjab, this provision was further modified by inserting
section 21B (The Punjab Amendment in year 2015)
whereby maximum period was reduced from 7 days to 3
days for Family Court to send certified copy of the
W.P.No.70550/2021
9
decree to the Chairman. This leaves no room for doubt
that as per plain reading of above proviso, period of 90
days for reconciliation will commence from the date of
receipt of copy of decree for dissolution of marriage by
Chairman. However, as per law settled in Mst. Farida
Parwin vs. Qadeeruddin Ahmad Siddiqi (PLD 1971
Karachi 118) and Abdul Sattar vs. Zahida Parveen
(1991 MLD 403) to which, I do agree, a decree for
dissolution of marriage does not became ineffective
merely because copy to Chairman was not sent by Court
within prescribed period and in such situation, its
effectiveness would be reckoned from the date of due
service and efflux of the requisite period, as be relevant
in a particular case. In the instant case, though it is not
shown that decree was sent by Court within 3 days,
however, as copy of decree was admittedly received by
the Union Council on 27.8.2016, therefore, period of 90
days will commence from 27.8.2016.
10. Now the next question also arising from same legal
proposition is that whether the decree of khula could
become ineffective or revoked unilaterally by respondent
No.3 through her affidavit dated 28.9.2016. In this
W.P.No.70550/2021
10
context, perusal of section 7(3) of the Ordinance
manifests that talaq can be revoked expressly or
otherwise before expiry of 90 days. However, section
21(3) of the Act is a nonabstante clause and under clause
(b) of subsection (3) of section 21 of the Act, there is no
room of revocation available for the decree of khula and
only way decree will become ineffective if reconciliation
has been effected between the parties in accordance with
the provisions of the Ordinance. The presence of word
“revoke” in section 7(3) of the Ordinance and its
conspicuous absence in section 21(3)(b) of the Act, leave
no manner of doubt that decree of khula will only
become ineffective if within 90 days, a reconciliation has
been affected between the spouses on the basis of mutual
or bilateral arrangement. Unless there is mutuality, it
cannot be said that reconciliation has been affected
between the parties and decree has become ineffective
for the purpose of section 21(3)(b) of the Act. The same
view was also expressed by this Court in Abdul Sattar
supra.
11. The above interpretation and intention of the
legislation is also for the reason that though right of
W.P.No.70550/2021
11
divorce by way of khula is equal to the right of talaq
available to the husband, however, they are
fundamentally different as in case of khula, divorce is not
by wife rather the Court acts as a substitute for the
husband and the decree for dissolution of marriage
virtually partakes of the character of pronouncement of
divorce. To dissolve marriage by way of khula although
husband consent is not needed but the wife has to satisfy
the Court in order to get the decree for dissolution of
marriage. Similar view was also expressed in Mst.
Khurshid Bibi vs. Baboo Muhammad Amin (PLD 1967
Supreme Court 97), Mst. Manzoor Vs. Allah Wasaya
(PLD 1973 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 36) and Mst. Huma
Hafeez vs. Shaukat Javaid etc (1993 CLC 855). The case
law relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.3
does not relates to the divorce through decree of khula,
therefore, not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
this case.
12. When we examine the instant matter in the light of
above legal position, there is no dispute that husband
during his life time neither signed the affidavit dated
28.9.2016 nor ever appeared before the Union Council or
W.P.No.70550/2021
12
Municipal Committee to endorse the stance of respondent
No.3 that reconciliation has been affected. He rather later
filed application for setting aside exparte decree for
maintenance allowance dated 30.6.2017 and stated that
divorce was already affected and the affidavit is without
his consent. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that
the decree of khula dated 28.5.2016 became ineffective
on the basis of unilateral affidavit or statement of the
respondent No.3.
13. From the above discussion, it has become
conspicuous that husband has right to revoke the divorce
whereas wife has no authority to revoke the decree for
dissolution of marriage unilaterally and revocation can
only take place through reconciliation with mutual
consent of the parties. However, as per law settled
repeatedly by Courts, wife has right to remarry her
husband again after solemnizing the Nikkah without
intervening of third person, as pronouncement of khula
by Court, would amount to a single divorce. This legal
positon has been held in the following judgments:-.
(i)
“In SALEEM AHMAD and others v.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through
Attorney General of Pakistan and 2 others
W.P.No.70550/2021
13
(P L D 2014 Federal Shariat Court 43) the
Hon’ble Court held that "Khula" and
"Mubarat" operated as a single, irrevocable
divorce and even thereafter both the spouses
could contract fresh marriage with mutual
consent, of course if they wanted to, without
any intermediary marriage of the wife with
another person.
(ii) In Major QAMAR ZAMAN QADIR v.
JUDGE FAMILY COURT, JEHLUM and
others (PLD 2013 Lahore 88) the Hon’ble
Court held that Pronouncement of Khula' by
court would amount to single divorce and
husband would be at liberty to marry the
wife again after solemnization of nikah
without intervention of a third person. It is
held that Section 7(6) of the Muslim Family
Laws Ordinance, 1961 did not debar wife
whose marriage had been terminated by
divorce under S.7 of the said Ordinance
from remarrying the same husband without
intervening marriage with a third person.
(iii) In DANISH v. Mst. FOZIA DANISH
and another (P L D 2013 Sindh 209) the
Hon’ble Court held that the relevant
provision of Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961 provides approved mode of
divorce by one 'Talaq' and this mode is
obligatory for husband to divorce by one
mode of 'Talaq' other than 'Talaq-e-Ahsan'
so the couple could remarry without any
intervening marriage except where the wife
has been divorced thrice and third divorce
has become effective and only in that case
they cannot remarry without 'HALALA'.
W.P.No.70550/2021
14
(iv) In ATTIQ AHMED KHAN vs. NOOR-ULSABA and another (2011 C L C 1211) the
Hon’ble Court held that Pronouncement of
'Khula' by the court was a
single divorce, as the defendant husband
never accepted it voluntarily and such
kind of dissolution of marriage was known
as "Talaq-ul-Ba'ayen" It is also held that
before re-union in such-like cases "Halala"
was neither condition precedent nor the
decree of 'Khula' was a hurdle in the way of
re-union. The learned Court observed that
no provision of law precluded the spouses
from re-union, however, only condition was
to perform a fresh 'Nikah' and since, reunion of the parties after decree of 'Khula'
was a result of a fresh contract, the
judgment and decree had no restraining
effect upon re-marrying.
(v)
In MUHAMM4D AYUB KHAN v. Mst.
SHEHLA RASHEED and another (P L D
2010 Karachi 131) the learned Court held
that pronouncement of Khula' by the Court
would amount to a single divorce until the
third divorce takes place. The petitioner
would be at liberty to re-marry his wife and
the parties can rejoin as husband and wife
on the solemnization of Nikah without
intervention of third person.
(vi) In FAZLI-E-SUBHAN v. Mst. SABEREEN
and 3 others (P L D 2003 Peshawar 169)
held that in case of divorce through Khula' it
was not obligatory on wife to re-marry a
third person before re-marrying with her
first husband and observed that re-marriage
with same husband, of course, would be
subject to performance of another Nikah.
W.P.No.70550/2021
15
Further held that provisions of S.7(6) of
Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961,
however, also allowed such re-union without
'Halala' and no restraint existed, in
circumstances, either in Muslim Family
Laws Ordinance, 1961 or in Injunctions of
Qur'an and Sunnah not to allow prayer of
husband for re-union with his wife when she
was ready to live again as wife within limits
of God.
(vii) In GULZAR HUSSAIN v. Mst. MARIYAM
NAZ (2000 M L D 447) the learned Court
held that Pronouncement of Khula' by
Family Court, in circumstances, would
amount to single divorce and until third
divorce would take place, husband would be
at liberty to remarry his wife again and
parties could join as husband and wife on
solmanization of Nikah without intervention
of third person.
(viii) In Mst. NAWAB BIBI AND 14 OTHERS v.
Mst. ANWAR BIBI AND 6 OTHERS (P L D
1970 Lahore 1) this Court settled that if
khula` is performed by a decree of
dissolution of marriage by the Court the
question of pronouncing talaq thrice does
not arise and, therefore, the further question
of there being an intervening husband
before Second marriage between the
spouses would similarly not arise.
14. In aforesaid judgments, Hon’ble Courts repeatedly
held that pronouncement of khula by the Court is a single
divorce, as the husband never accepted it voluntarily.
W.P.No.70550/2021
16
Such kind of dissolution of marriage is known as “Talaqul-Baayen”, and in such like case, intervening marriage
(Halala) is not a condition precedent for re-union of the
spouses, however, only condition is to perform fresh
nikah.
15. The next question is that once the reconciliation
proceedings between the spouses have failed whether
Union Council is bound to issue divorce effectiveness
certificate. This Court in Muhammad Ishaque vs. Ch.
Ahsan Ahmad etc (PLD 1975 Lahore 1118) held that
neither the Chairman of the Union Council nor the
Arbitration Council can nullify a decree of dissolution of
marriage, rather their only function is to certify whether
reconciliation has succeeded or failed. This question was
also discussed in Muhammad Afzal Khan vs. Chairman
Arbitration Council and another (2018 CLC 1125) and
Mst. Gul Zameeran etc vs. Mst. Aasia (2017 CLC 1431)
where it is held that purpose of Arbitration Council is to
hold reconciliation proceedings between the spouses and
if matter was not reconciled, Chairman Arbitration
Council had to issue certificate of effectiveness of talaq
after period of 90 days. In view of law settled above,
W.P.No.70550/2021
17
once the reconciliation not effected in this case within 90
days, the divorce became effective and the Union
Council was required to issue Certificate.
16. In the present case, it is also relevant to note that
decree of khula dated 28.5.2016 was received by Union
Council on 27.8.2016 and notices were issued for
29.9.2016 when affidavit was submitted on 28.9.2016.
However, the matter was not treated as closed by Union
Council and notices were again issued by Municipal
Committee on 09.9.2017, much after expiry of 90 days
from the date when the decree of khula was received. It
is also settled law that issuance of certificate of talaq is a
technicality which does not find mention in the
Ordinance and talaq become effective automatically after
90 days from receipt of notice of talaq by the Union
Council. Reliance in this regard is placed on Almas
Mubashar vs. Mubashar Hanif (PLD 2014 Lahore 494).
17. It is also argued that whether matter could be
referred to Islamic Council by respondent No.1 under
Article 230 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution). In this regard, it is noted
that part IX of the Constitution deals with the
W.P.No.70550/2021
18
composition, functions and procedure of Islamic Council
and the role of Islamic Council is of advisory nature in
terms of Article 230 of the Constitution. The primary
object of the Islamic Council is to advise the parliament,
Provincial Assembly, President or Governor to ensure
conformity of laws with the injunctions of Islam,
therefore, the instant matter between private individuals
could not be referred to Islamic Council by respondent
No.1.
18. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is
allowed and after setting aside the order dated 30.6.2021,
respondent No.1 is directed to issue Divorce
Effectiveness Certificate in the matter.
19. Before parting with this judgment, I must
acknowledge with appreciation the valuable assistance
rendered by the learned counsel for the parties, especially
amicus curiae Khawaja Isaam Bin Haris, Advocate.
(ABID AZIZ SHEIKH)
JUDGE
Approved for Reporting
JUDGE