Section 14 cannot be invoked when lian is made
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a dispute between a husband and wife under Pakistan's Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, which deals with false accusations of adultery (zina). The husband had made written accusations against his wife, alleging she committed adultery and that all three of her children were illegitimate. He made these statements before his elder brother and reportedly before a village council (panchayat).
The trial court had refused to frame formal charges against the husband under Section 7 of the Ordinance, reasoning that since the accusations were made while the couple was still married, Section 14 applied instead. Section 14 typically provides different treatment for accusations made between spouses, known as lian.
However, the Federal Shariat Court found that by the time the husband made these accusations, he had already divorced his wife and executed a divorce deed. This meant the marital relationship had already ended, so the two were legally just a man and a woman, not husband and wife, when the accusations were made. Because of this, Section 14 could not apply, and the charges should proceed under Sections 6 and 7 of the Ordinance, which deal with false accusations of adultery more broadly.
The Federal Shariat Court set aside the trial court's order and directed that charges be properly framed. The Supreme Court later refused the husband's request for leave to appeal, upholding this decision. This case clarifies that the special spousal exception under Section 14 only applies while a marriage is still intact, not after divorce.
یہ مقدمہ پاکستان کے قانونِ قذف (نفاذِ حد) آرڈیننس 1979 کے تحت میاں بیوی کے درمیان ایک تنازع سے متعلق تھا، جو زنا کے جھوٹے الزامات سے متعلقہ معاملات کا احاطہ کرتا ہے۔ شوہر نے اپنی بیوی کے خلاف تحریری طور پر الزامات عائد کیے تھے کہ اس نے زنا کا ارتکاب کیا اور اس کے تینوں بچے ناجائز ہیں۔ اس نے یہ بیانات اپنے بڑے بھائی کے سامنے اور مبینہ طور پر گاؤں کی پنچایت کے سامنے دیے تھے۔
ٹرائل کورٹ نے آرڈیننس کی دفعہ 7 کے تحت شوہر کے خلاف باقاعدہ فردِ جرم عائد کرنے سے انکار کر دیا تھا، اور اس کی بنیاد یہ قرار دی کہ چونکہ یہ الزامات اس وقت لگائے گئے جب دونوں کا نکاح بدستور قائم تھا، اس لیے دفعہ 14 کا اطلاق ہوگا۔ دفعہ 14 عام طور پر میاں بیوی کے درمیان لگائے گئے الزامات کے لیے مختلف طریقہ کار فراہم کرتی ہے، جسے "لعان" کہا جاتا ہے۔
تاہم، وفاقی شرعی عدالت نے ی
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
Citation Name : 2010 SCMR 681 SHARIAT APPELLATE JURISDICTION Side Appellant : Haji BAKHTAWAR SAID MUHAMMAD Side Opponent : Mst. DUR-E-SHAHWAR BEGUM Ss. 6, 7 & 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203-F(2B)---Trial Court had refused to frame the charge under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, on the ground that the petitioner had levelled the charge of adultery etc. against the respondent during the subsistence of marriage and that the dispute being between husband and wife, S.14 of the said Ordinance was attracted in the case---Federal Shariat Court accepting the revision petition filed by the respondent set aside the order of Trial Court and remanded the case 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-Validity-Relationship of husband and wife (between the parties) had admittedly come to an end on the day when the petitioner had divorced the respondent and executed the divorce deed---Facts disclosed by the petitioner in his evidence adduced during preliminary inquiry under S.202, Cr.P.C. had revealed that the petitioner and respondent were just a man and a women and not husband and wife, when the petitioners in his three written statements, before his elder brother and allegedly also before a Punchayat in his own house, had made imputation of Zina against the respondent and explicitly alleged that all of her three children were illegitimate children---Action of petitioner, therefore, had clearly attracted the provisions of Ss.6 & 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, and there was no question of S.14 of the said Ordinance being attracted in the case---Leave to appeal was refused to petitioner by Supreme Court accordingly.