Anwar Hussain vs The State, etc
This criminal revision petition challenges the sentence of a fine imposed on the petitioner following his conviction under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The petitioner was convicted in a private complaint for violating family law provisions, receiving a sentence of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500,000. While the appellate court reduced the imprisonment to the period already undergone, it maintained the fine. The core legal question was whether the court possesses the discretion to reduce the quantum of the fine imposed under the amended law. The Lahore High Court held that the amendment introduced by the Punjab Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, made the imposition of a Rs. 500,000 fine mandatory upon conviction. The court reasoned that while the legislature retained judicial discretion regarding the duration of imprisonment, it explicitly removed discretion concerning the fine. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that the statutory requirement for the fine is absolute and leaves no room for judicial reduction or waiver.
- Does a court have the discretion to reduce the quantum of a fine imposed under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as amended by the Punjab Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015?
- Is the imposition of a fine of Rs. 500,000 mandatory for a conviction under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, following the 2015 amendment?
- Section 6(5)(b), Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961
- Section 6(5)(b), Punjab Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act 2015
Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, J. Through this criminal revision, the petitioner/convict has assailed the sentence of fine imposed by the learned courts below vide judgment dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mandi Bahauddin, whereby he was convicted in private complaint filed by respondent No.2 under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, whereas in appeal the imprisonment of the petitioner was reduced to that of already undergone, however , sentence of fine was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2019.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Dealing with criminal revision in hand the only point in issue to be resolved is that whether the sentence of fine imposed against the petitioner can be reduced in consideration of the circumstances weighed by the learned appellate court while reducing the quantum of sentence of imprisonment imposed. For convenience initial text of Clause (b) of sub section (5) of Section 6 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is reproduced as under: Section 6(5)(b) - "On conviction upon complaint be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both."
While the aforesaid clause has been substituted later on by Punjab Muslim Family Laws (amendment) Act, 2015 (Act No.XIII of 2015) which reads as under: Section 6(5)(b) - "On conviction upon complaint be punishable with the simple imprisonment which may extend to one year and with fine of five hundred thousand rupees."
The legislature through the above reproduced substitution of sub clause (b) sub section (5) of Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 has withdrawn the discretion of Court with regard to quantum of fine to be imposed and imposition of fine itself which very clearly transpires intention of the legislature.
4. The case in hand when viewed in the context of the substitution/amendment mentioned supra leads this Court to conclude that imposition of fine of Rs.500,000/- to a convict under Section 6(5)(b) of Punjab Muslim Family Laws (amendment) Act, 2015 (Act No.XIII of 2015), is mandatory . Though discretion with regard to the quantum of sentence of imprisonment is provided yet no such space is given in case of sentence of fine. The judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner reported as Ishtiaq Ahmad v. The State and others (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 187) and Noor Muhammad and another v. State, etc. [PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore)275 (DB)] are not applicable to the facts of instant case and subject legal proposition. No illegality , jurisdictional error or impropriety in the judgments passed by the learned courts below with regard to the question of law involved could be surfaced. Hence, this petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed.