Can married women be allowed to live with strangers, asks SHC

The Sindh High Court has appointed a senior counsel as amicus curiae to assist the court on the point as to whether a married woman in Muslim society can be allowed to live with strangers.

The point was raised during a petition by Ms Saleha who sought protection from the court against forced marriage. The petitioner, who was sui-juris [of age], submitted that she left the house of her parents, who had forcibly gotten her married to a man named Mohammad Rafiq. She said that she didn’t go to her husband’s house and left her parents’ home too, and went to live at a friend’s house in Mehmoodabad. However, her brother registered case against her friend’s family members and alleged that she had been taken for the purpose of Zina.

An SHC division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro issued notices to the Sindh advocate general and prosecutor general to file comments on the petition. The court also appointed senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui as amicus curiae [friend of the court] to assist the court as to whether a married woman in Muslim society can be allowed to live with strangers.

The court also ordered the investigation officer to not arrest the people nominated in the FIR by the petitioner’s brother till further orders. Separately, the SHC also suspended an order by the District and Sessions Judge Thatta that restrained the Thatta police from registering cases against Gutka manufacturers, transporters and sellers, and directed the home department and Sindh police chief to lodge an FIR against all the culprits who are selling Mainpuri, Gutka.

The directives came on the petition of Abdul Ghaffar Kalwar who challenged the district judge’s order in the bail matter of Gutka and Mainpuri manufactures and sellers in Thatta. The appellant submitted that the judge while deciding the pre-arrest bail also decided the fate of Sections 269 and 270 of the PPC pointing out that Gutka, Mainpuri and other material containing hazardous elements were not falling within such sections, hence FIR could not be lodged against them and directed all magistrates and trial courts to dispose of cases registered under such sections within one month.

The appellant and the deputy prosecutor general submitted that such observation and conclusion as well as direction by the district judge was unwarranted under the law and also in negation with the direction of the SHC.

The SHC bench said that the judge not being an expert in medicine, food, etc was not competent to make such observation. The court observed that the judge also attempted to bind the district police as well as the district administration from taking lawful measures for an unlawful act and omission and same was not within the competence of the judge.