MANZOOR AHMED Versus MUHAMMAD RAHAT HUSSAIN KHAN Fida Mohammad Khan Khel , Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Asstt. A.-G. for the State.,Salim Ahmed
1. This is an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, inter alia, alleging therein that he was engaged with one Miss Gul Rukh daughter of respondent No.l, Mohammad Rahat Hussain Khan. That a formal engagement ceremony was held in which photographs of bride and bridegroom were also taken with their relatives. That it was agreed that marriage and Rukhsati will take place after one year. That after the expiry of one year applicant requested the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are father and brother of the bride respectively, for marriage and Rukhsati but they avoided. Later the applicant came to know that the respondents are going to marry Miss Gul Rukh with someone else, and on her refusal she is being threatened. That Miss Gul Rukh is under great pressure of respondents and is detained by them. She has sent message to the applicant for his help and for her release from the illegal detention. It is further alleged that due to formal engagement the applicant has also right to intervene in the matter. Therefore, it was prayed that this Court may direct the S.H.O. Ferozabad to produce Miss Gul Rukh before this Court and after recording her statement she may be set at liberty.
2. A notice of this application was issued to the respondents who appeared before this Court. The respondent No. 1, Mohammad Rahat Hussain Khan appeared to be an old and ailing person.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that Miss Gul Rukh was being wrongfully detained by the respondents and, therefore, rule nisi be issued for her production and she may be set at liberty.
4. I have gone through the application and the documents produced alongwith the same and have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant.
5. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 1 is father of Miss Gul Rukh while respondent No. 2 is her brother. The applicant does not claim to be related to Miss Gul Rukh except that he was engaged with her and the engagement has been broken by the parents of Miss Gul Rukh. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have contended that Miss Gul Rukh was residing with them happily and that she was not being detained illegally or improperly. Looking to the circumstances of the case I am of the considered view that the petition has been filed mala fide with a view to malign and disrespect the respondents who are father and brother of Miss Gul Rukh. Even otherwise looking to the social and moral environments prevailing in Muslim community the father and brother have a right to exercise some control and restraint over their children. And, therefore, it cannot be said that Miss Gul Rukh was being illegally or improperly detained by the respondents. Now‑a‑days it has become fashion with the young people to abuse the provisions of section 491, Cr.P.C. In the case of Shaukat Ali v. Altaf Hussain and another 1972 S C M R 398 it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that:‑
6. "Courts do not function in vacuum and must take due note of the social and moral environments prevailing in the Muslim community for which the law is to be administered."
7. In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that the present application has been filed mala fide and there were no reason for the applicant to file the present application which is accordingly dismissed.
8. S.A./M‑301/K Application dismissed.