Judgment of the federal shariat court on absence of Husband

1/K of 1986 Nizamuddin Vs. Zainab Defendant Mst.Zainab obtained Court Decree by way of khula. According to the Petitioner, he was in Africa. So Nikah still persists. The Court held that: The dissolution of marriage between the parties was final. The present petition does not involve any question as provided by the constitution. Petition was dismissed. Appeal not filed.

Dowry
55. 1/K of 1987 Saeedullah Kazimi Vs. State The petitioner has prayed that the custom of giving dowry be declared prohibited as it violates the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet. The Court pleased to hold that: There is The Dowry and Bridal Gift Restriction Act 1976. Dowry is not prohibited in Islam. It can be declared as Mubah Permissible. If the Government considers it against Masalih it can be declared as prohibited. The petitioner has not submitted any verse of Ahadith in support of his claim. Petition was dismissed. Appeal not filed.

Supension and Salary

4/I & 8/I of 1989 I.A. Sherwani Vs. Govt. of Pakistan. The contention of the petitioner is that under the Rules, deprivation of Govt. Servants of their full salary and other benefits during period of suspension is against the Injunctions of Islam. The Federal Shariat Court declared relevant provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 not repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. Petition with regard to section 53 of the Fundamental rule was allowed. The Court held that the Govt. Servant could not be deprived of his salary during suspension period. (MLD 1991 FSC-2613) Appeal was preferred before Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that suspended Govt. Servant should continue to enjoy other facilities, like Residence, telephone, and vehicle apart from his salary. (PLD 1994 S.C- 72).

13/I of 1992 M. Ayub Khalid Vs. Govt. of Pakistan The petitioner has challenged rule 16(1) of Govt. Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964, whereby Government Officers are not allowed to engage in any trade employment etc other than his official duties except with the previous sanction of the Government. The Court held that: The classification between Gazetted and non Gazetted Government Servants seems to be based on public good and does not appear to offend Injunctions of Islam.

Appeal not filed.

Inheritance of grand children by FSC

04. 29/I,13/L of 1993 Allah Rakha VS Federation of Pakistan Sections 4,5,6 and 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 had been challenged for being repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. Section 4 is regarding the entitlement of shares of grand children in the inheritance of their deceased father while sec5ion 5 is regarding permission of the Court to have second wife and section 7 deals with the notice of Talaq sent to the Chairman, Union Council which is not provided for. The Court was pleased to declare sections 4 and 7 as repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. It was held that in the light of Wasiyyat Wajibah a provision can be made by providing that in case a propositions dies without creating a will, to the extent of 1/3 in favour of grand children out of the estate with a ceiling that it does not go beyond the share of their predecessor, shall be deemed to have been created by the grant parents in their favour. For detail, pl. read PLD 2000-FSC page- 1) Appeal is pending before the S.C.

Majority Act 1875

111. 6/I of 2004. Muhammad Fayyaz and others VS Federation of Pakistan. The petitioner filed two Shariat petitions challenging Section 3 of the majority Act IX of 1875 as being repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. According to the petitioner the age of majority as fixed in the impugned section is not in line with the injunctions of Islam because it is a source of botheration for him to provide maintenance till the age of 18 in spite the fact that his might have much earlier attained puberty according to Islamic injunctions. The arguments advanced by the petitioner are based on the opinions of the jurists. The Court held that:- The Courts have great regard for opinion of the Muslim Jurists, however, according to the constitutional requirement, it cannot declare any law or its provision repugnant to the injunctions of Islam merely on the basis of their opinion. Regarding the question under consideration, the relevant injunctions contained in the Holy Quran and Sunnah were minutely gone through by the Court but could not find any specific verse or authentic Hadith, in this particular matter that could be quoted to support the contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner. It was held that mere manifestation of the physical symptoms of attaining puberty, are not themselves

sufficient to hold that the concerned person has also attained the age of majority. Beside that, there are definitely other mental, emotional and psychological aspects that form necessary basis for that purpose. Moreover, the ages in attaining physical puberty vary from place and from person to person and no definite criteria can be specified to exactly determine who attained puberty and on which date? That is why even the renowned Muslim scholars are not unanimous on this point and have held divergent opinions in respect of age of puberty. It was further observed that for the purpose of legislation, specific age limit has to be fixed by the legislature so that the parties who enter litigation in this respect are conveniently bound by definite law to follow the same, without indulging in further controversies and complications for determination of puberty. In view of above these petitions were dismissed.

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1898

(ACT NO. V OF 1898). Section No: [ 22nd March, 1898 ] PART VIII SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAPTER XXXVII DIRECTIONS OF THE NATURE OF A Habeas Corpus Section Index

Power to issue directions of the nature of a habeas corpus 491.(1) The High Court Division may, whenever it thinks fit, direct:-

(a) that a person within the limits of its appellate criminal jurisdiction be brought up before the Court to be dealt with according to law; (b) that a person illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody with such limits be set at liberty; (c) that a prisoner detained in any jail situate within such limits be brought before the Court to be there examined as a witness in any matter pending or to be inquired into in such Court; (d) that a prisoner detained as aforesaid be brought before a Court-martial or any Commissioners for trial or to be examined touching any matter pending before such Courtmartial or Commissioners respectively; (e) that a prisoner within such limits be removed from one custody to another for the purpose of trial ; and (2) The 2[ Supreme Court] may, from time to time, frame rules to regulate the procedure in cases under this section. 3[ (3) Nothing in this section applies to persons detained under any law for the time being in force providing for preventive detention.] Copyright 2010, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/sections_detail.php?id=75&sections_id=21977 Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs

 ) (