PLJ 2022 Peshawar 113
[Mingora Bench, Sawat)]
Present: Muhammad Naeem Anwar and Muhammad Ijaz Khan, JJ.
UMAR KHITAB--Petitioner
versus
Mst. SANA SHAH and another--Respondents
W.P. No. 932-M of 2021 With Interim Relief (N), decided on 9.3.2022.
Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (VIII of 1939)--
----S. 2(v)(vi)(ix)(c)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Arts. 2-A & 199--Suit for dissolution of marriage--Impotency of petitioner--Application for Medical Examination of petitioner during pendency of suit--Allowed--Determination of impotency of petitioner--Direction to--Denial of allegations of impotency--Second marriage of petitioner--Mode, manner and methodology adopted by Judge Family Court for determination of issue in hand is neither legal nor lawful nor justified, especially when such a controversy has already been pleaded by parties, issue in this respect has been framed and when they are yet to produce their respective evidence in support of their respective stance--Petitioner has contracted a second marriage with Mst. Aziza Bibi and who have gave birth to a baby boy and thus if impugned direction of appearance before Medical Board is allowed to sustain, then it will cause to cast a doubt over legitimacy of new born baby--Procedure adopted by Judge Family Court for determination of impotency of petitioner is declared as alien to law on subject, we hold that petitioner has not been treated in accordance with law--He has been compelled to do which law does not require him to do and petitioner has been deprived of protection of law of land--Petition allowed.
[Pp. 119 & 120] A, B & C
Malak Ahmad Jan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Tariq Aziz, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
M/s. Barrister Dr. Adnan Khan and Abdul Nasir, Advocates as amicus curiae.
Dates of hearing: 1 & 9.3.2022.
Judgment
Muhammad Ijaz Khan, J.--Through the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Respondent No. 2 i.e. Judge Family Court-I, Swat dated 28.09.2021, whereby petitioner was directed to appear before Medical Board for his medical examination so as to ascertain the factum or otherwise of his impotency.
2. Precisely the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 namely Mst. Sana Shah had filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage on the ground of impotency of the petitioner, non-payment of maintenance as well as cruelty. She has also prayed for payment of maintenance as well as for the return of dowry articles as per list attached with the plaint.
3. Petitioner, then defendant, was summoned who submitted his written statement, whereby all the allegations leveled against him by the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 were denied, specially with respect to his impotency as he has annexed his medical report from a famous laboratory and he has also stated that in-fact it was Respondent No. 1/plaintiff who is not ready to perform marital obligation and failure of all jirga, he has contracted second marriage and are living a happy life. The controversies between the parties were reduced into as many as seven issues, including the issue of dissolution of marriage on the basis of non-fulfillment of marital obligations.
4. At the stage of recording evidence of the plaintiff/ Respondent No. 1, it was on 29.05.2021, when Respondent No. 1/ plaintiff namely Mst. Sana Shah submitted an application for sending the present petitioner for medical examination regarding the impotency or otherwise before the trial of the suit, which application was strongly resisted by the present petitioner by submitting a detailed reply, however, the learned Judge Family Court vide impugned order dated 28.09.2021 allowed the aforesaid application with the following observations:
“Thus, in the light of the above, application is allowed and the defendant Umar Khitab is directed to appear before the Medical Board for his medical examination. Moreover, the Medical Superintendent D.H.Q. Hospital Saidu Sharif shall be addressed through a separate letter to constitute a Medical Board for the purpose of determining that whether respondent/defendant Umar Khitab is able to perform sexual intercourse/fulfill his conjugal rights or not. The report shall be submitted on or before date fixed. The medical/ examination expenses shall be borne by plaintiff.”
The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order before this Court through the instant petition.
5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as learned amicus curiae in detail and perused the record with their able and valuable assistance.
6. In this case, the questions before this Court for determination are that;
i. As to how and in what manner the impotency of an husband is to be ascertained and determined when such allegations are leveled against him by his wife?
ii. As to whether the mode and manner adopted by the learned Judge Family Court by directing the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for his medical examination so to as ascertain his impotency or potency as the case may be, is legally correct as per the law of the land? And
iii. As to whether the petitioner has been treated/dealt with in accordance with the law of the land?
7. As far as the first and second questions are concerned, to answer these question, Section 2 clauses (v), (ix) and proviso (c) of clause (ix) of The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 are relevant, which are reproduced hereunder:-
“2. Grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage.--A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:-
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v) That the husband was impotent at the time of the marriage and continues to be so;
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix) on any other ground which is recognized as valid for the dissolution of marriages under Muslim Law:
Provided that--
(a)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Before passing a decree on ground (v) the Court shall, on application by the husband, make an order requiring the husband to satisfy the Court within a period of one year from the date of such order that he has ceased to be impotent, and if the husband so satisfies the Court within such period, no decree shall be passed on the said ground.”
The aforesaid provision makes it unmistakably clear that for passing a decree on the ground of impotency of an husband, the Court is not required to send the husband to appear before a Medical Board for its report but what is required from a Judge Family Court is that it has to pass an order requiring the husband to satisfy it within a period of one year from the date of such order to the effect that the husband has ceased to be impotent and if the husband satisfies the Court, then no decree shall be passed on the said ground.
8. It would also be relevant for the purpose of the present controversy to quote some extracts from مجموعہ قوانین اسلام authored by Dr. Tanzeel-ur-Rehman:
"تفریق بسبب نامردی:
"122۔ (i) جس عورت کا نکاح شرع اسلام کے بمو جب منعقد ہوا ہو بدیں بناء عدالت سے تنسیخ نکاح کا حکم حاصل کر سکتی ہے کہ اس کا شوہر بوقت نکاح نامرد تھا نیز یہ کہ اس کی وہ حالت برقرار ہے۔
(ii) شوہر کی درخواست پر عدالت پر لازم ہو گا کہ بر بناء نامر دی تنسیخ نکاح کا حکم جاری کرنے سے قبل شوہر کو ایک سال کی مہلت دے تا کہ شوہر اس ایک سال کی مدت میں عدالت کو مطمئن کر سکے کہ وہ نامرد نہیں رہا ۔ اگر شوہر اس مدت میں عدالت کو مطمئن کر سکا تو عدالت نامردی کی بناء پر تنسیخ نکاح کا حکم دینے کی مجاز نہ ہو گی ۔
تشریح
نامر د کی تعریف:
فقہی اصطلاح میں نامرد ( عنین ) اس شخص کو کہتے ہیں جو عضو تناسل رکھنے کے باوجود عورت سے جماع کرنے پر قادر نہ ہو ، خواہ یہ حالت پیدائشی ہو یا کسی مرض کے سبب پیدا ہوئی ہو یا کمزوری یا بڑھاپے یا کسی اور وجہ سے پیدا ہوئی ہو ۔ اگر کوئی ایسا شخص جو بعض عورتوں سے جماع کرنے پر قادر ہے مگر بعض عورتوں سے جماع کرنے پر قادر نہیں تو وہ شخص ان بعض عورتوں کے حق میں جن سے جماع کرنے پر قادر نہیں ہے نامرد سمجھا جاۓ گا یا جس مرد کو عورت کی مخالطت سے قبل ہی انزال ہوجا تا ہو ، نامرد سمجھا جائے گا ۔
ایسے مرد کی زوجہ کو جو اس سے جماع کرنے پر قادر نہ ہوا ہو شرع نے بذریعہ عدالت طلب تفریق کا اختیار دیا ہے اور یہ اختیار زوجہ کے مطالبہ کی تاخیر سے خواہ کتنا عرصہ گزر جائے باطل نہیں ہوتا ۔
جب زوجہ اپنا معاملہ عدالت کے روبرو پیش کرے تو قاضی کے لئے لازم ہے کہ وہ شوہر سے حقیقت حال معلوم کرے ۔ اگر شوہر اس بات کا اقرار کرے کہ وہ اس عورت سے جماع کرنے پر قادر نہیں ہواتو حاکم عدالت علاج کرنے کے لئے اسکو ایک سال کی مہلت دے گا ۔ لیکن اگر شوہر عورت سے جماع کرنے کا ادعا کرے اور عورت کنواری ہونے کی مدعی نہ ہو تو شوہر سے حلف لیا جاۓ گا اگر اس نے قسم کھالی کہ اس نے اس عورت سے جماع کیا ہے تو عدالت زوجہ کی درخواست مسترد کر دے گی لیکن اگر شوہر حلف لینے سے انکاری ہو تو عدالت اس کو علاج کرنے کے لئے ایک سال کی مہلت دے گی ۔ لیکن اگر عورت اس بات کی مدعی کی ہے کہ وہ کنواری ہے تو عدالت اس عورت کے طبی معائنہ کا حکم دے گی اگر طبی معائنہ کی رو سے عورت کا باکرہ ہونا ثابت نہ ہو تو شوہر سے حلف لیا جائے گا اگر اس نے قسم کھائی کہ اس نے اپنی ز وجہ سے جماع کیا ہے تو عدالت تفریق کا حکم جاری نہ کرے گی لیکن اگر شوہر حلف لینے سے انکار کرے تو عدالت ایک سال کی مہلت دے گی ۔ لیکن اگر طبی معائنہ سے یہ ثابت ہو کہ عورت اس وقت تک کنواری ہے تو عدالت شوہر سے حلف لئے بغیر اس کو علاج کی غرض سے ایک سال کی مہلت دے گی ۔ اسی طرح اگر عورت اپنے ثیبہ ہونے ( کنوارے پن کے ازالہ ) کے متعلق یہ کہے کہ شوہر نے اسکا ازالہ انگلی سے یا کسی دوسرے طریقے سے کیا ہے وطی سے نہیں اور شوہر وطی کرنے کا مدعی ہو تب بھی یہی حکم ہو گا ۔ حنیفہ کے نزدیک ڈاکٹری معائنہ کا نتیجہ کہ اسکی بکارت کس طرح زائل ہوئی معتبر ہو گا لیکن افضل یہ ہے کہ ڈاکٹر نیوں کی تعداد 2 ہو ۔
ایک سال کی مدت حاکم عدالت کے مہلت دینے کی تاریخ سے شمار ہو گی اس سے پہلے خواہ کتنی ہی مدت گزر چکی ہو اس کا اعتبار نہ کیا جائے گا ۔
اگر ایک سال کی مدت میں شوہر کسی طرح علاج کر کے تندرست ہو گیا اور ایک مرتبہ بھی عورت سے جماع کرنے پر قادر ہو گیا تو عورت کا اس بناء پر فسخ نکاح کا حق باطل ہو جائے گا ۔
لیکن اگر اس ایک سال کی مدت میں شوہر ایک بار بھی عورت سے جماع پر قادر نہ ہو سکا تو عدالت عورت کی خواہش پر ، شوہر کو طلاق دینے کا حکم دے گی ۔ اگر شوہر طلاق دینے سے منکر ہو تو عدالت خود تفریق کر دے گی ۔ "
A comparison of the abovementioned extracts from مجموعہ قوانین اسلام and provisions of The Family Courts Act would show that Section 2 (v), (ix) and proviso (c) of clause (ix) of The Act of 1939 is in line and conformity of Sharia, therefore no deviation could be allowed to sustain in the form of the impugned order of the Judge Family Court.
9. In the case in hand, petitioner being an husband and who in his written statement has taken a specific plea that when the aforesaid allegations of impotency were made by the Respondent No. 1, then plaintiff, in presence of his father-in-law, thereafter her parents required the present petitioner to undergo necessary medical test which he has accordingly conducted from a laboratory and as per the report of the laboratory dated 04.06.2020, petitioner has been declared as a healthy and potent man. Therefore, the legal worth of the aforesaid report and plea of the petitioner of being a healthy and potent man was yet to be determined by the learned Judge Family Court after recording of pro & contra evidence, however in the middle of the way, the Judge Family Court by allowing the application of the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff has directed the present petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for ascertainment of the impotency or otherwise of the petitioner, and thus the mode, manner and methodology adopted by the Judge Family Court for the determination of the issue in hand is neither legal nor lawful nor justified, especially when such a controversy has already been pleaded by the parties, issue in this respect has been framed and when they are yet to produce their respective evidence in support of their respective stance, therefore we believe that the Judge Family Court has erred in law by allowing application of the Respondent No. 1, then plaintiff, and by restoring to a procedure, which is alien to law on the subject.
10. It is also a matter of record and as stated in Paras-v, vi & vii of the instant petition that petitioner has contracted a second marriage with one Mst. Aziza Bibi and who have gave birth to a baby boy and thus if the impugned direction of appearance before the Medical Board is allowed to sustain, then it will cause to cast a doubt over the legitimacy of the new born baby, so on this score too, petitioner would face an unending social humiliation and as such would amount to deprive him of an opportunity of social justice as guaranteed to him by the preamble and Article 2-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
11. To answer the Question No. 3, it may be noted that it is the inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with the law of the land, so it would be relevant to trace the aforesaid right of the petitioner being a citizen of Pakistan in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the following provisions would be relevant:
“Preamble.--Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him in a sacred trust;
Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed;
Wherein the Muslim shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;
Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;”
Under Article 2-A of The Constitution of lslamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the objective resolution has been declared as substantive part of The Constitution, where the following provisions are relevant for the fact in issue:-
“Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as annunciated by Islam shall be fully observed;
Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah;
Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;
Article 4. Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law, etc.--(1) to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.
(2) In particular--
(a) No action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law;
(b) No person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and
(c) No person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do.”
Article 25. Equality of citizens.--(1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.”
12. So keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the procedure adopted by the learned Judge Family Court for determination of the impotency of the petitioner-husband is declared as alien to law on the subject, we hold that petitioner has not been treated in accordance with law. We also hold that he has been compelled to do which the law does not require him to do and as such we further hold that petitioner has been deprived of the protection of law of the land.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of Respondent No. 2 i.e. Judge Family Court-I, Swat dated 28.09.2021 is set aside and consequently the learned Judge Family Court-I, Swat is directed to proceed in the case in accordance with law and as per the aforesaid mode and manner for determination of the impotency of the petitioner-husband, if any, essential for a just and fair decision between the parties.
(Y.A.) Petition allowed
