Interpretation of Article 203-DD of Constitution
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a dispute over which criminal charge applied to a man accused of falsely alleging his ex-wife committed adultery.
Background: A woman (Mst. Durr-e-Shahwar Begum) filed a private complaint against a man (Haji Bakhtawar Said Muhammad), alleging he had accused her of adultery (zina) and bad character, claiming her three children were illegitimate. He reportedly made these accusations in written statements filed in her maintenance and dowry cases before the Family Court, and also before his elder brother and a village council (panchayat).
The trial court framed charges under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 — a provision that applies when such accusations are made *during* a marriage. The trial court reasoned the allegations were made while the two were still married.
The Court's Decision: The Federal Shariat Court disagreed. It found that the marriage had already ended — the husband himself had admitted in his own court filings that he had divorced the complainant and executed a divorce deed. Since the accusations were made after the divorce, the parties were no longer husband and wife but simply "a man and a woman." This meant Section 14 didn't apply; instead, Sections 6 and 7 of the Ordinance (dealing with false accusations of adultery against non-spouses) were the correct provisions.
Why it matters: The court set aside the trial court's order and sent the case back, directing that charges be framed under the correct sections. This clarifies that the timing of
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
Section 14 of Hadood Ordinance interpreted along with Constitutional Articles in this judgment of Federal Shariat Court... Citation Name : 2010 PCrLJ 142 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Side Appellant : Mst. DURR-E-SHAHWAR BEGUM Side Opponent : Haji BAKHTAWAR SAID MUHAMMAD Ss. 7 & 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203-DD---Trial Court, after inquiry under S.202, Cr.P.C. in the private complaint, had framed the charge against the accused respondent under S.14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, instead of S.7 thereof on the ground that accused had levelled the charge of adultery and of bad character against the complainant petitioner during subsistence of marriage between them and not after the divorce---Validity---Matrimonial relationship between the parties had ended when the accused had divorced the complainant and executed divorce deed, as conceded by him in his written statements filed in the maintenance and dowry suits of the complainant before the Family Court---Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, thus, was not attracted to the facts of the case---Complainant and accused were just a woman and a man and not a wife and husband, when the accused in his said written statements and also before his elder brother and a Punchayat in his own house, had allegedly made imputation of Zina against the complainant explicitly stating that all of her three child ren were illegitimate ---Action of accused, therefore, had clearly attracted the provisions of Ss.6 & 7 of the Offence of the Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979---Impugned order of Trial Court was consequently set aside being untenable and the case was remanded to the said Court with the direction to frame the charge under Ss.6 & 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, and proceed with the case in accordance with law---Revision petition was accepted accordingly.