Mst. NAUSHABA vs KHALIL AHMAD RABBANI and another
The petitioner-mother filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to initiate proceedings under section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against her former husband for allegedly making a false statement regarding a second marriage in earlier habeas corpus proceedings. The core legal question was whether the High Court's refusal to exercise discretion to initiate perjury proceedings warranted interference by the Supreme Court, particularly when the petition was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that the petition was barred by seventy-six days without a plausible explanation, that the High Court had validly exercised its discretion in refusing to take cognizance, and that parties should not use courts to satisfy personal vendettas when alternative legal remedies are available for grievances concerning a second marriage. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to initiate collateral proceedings like perjury inquiries, especially in belated petitions reflecting personal vendettas.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise discretion under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a petition barred by limitation without a plausible explanation be entertained?
- Are alternative legal remedies available to a wife aggrieved by a husband's second marriage?
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---Petitioner Mst. Naushaba and respondent No,1 Khalil Ahmad Rabbani were wife and husband. Out of the children, one minor-was snatched by the respondent- husband, whereupon the petitioner-mother filed a habeas corpus petition under section 491, Cr.P.C.
Another point of contention between the parties was that the husband had contracted a second marriage. The husband gave a statement before the High Court that he had not contracted another marriage but subsequently he admitted that though it was contracted yet not consummated.
2. The wife initiated proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C. But the Honourable Lahore High Court, vide its judgment dated 27-1-1999, refused to initiate proceedings against the respondent and hence this petition.
3. At the very outset it may be remarked that the petition is barred by 76 days for which no plausible explanation is forthcoming. In order to satisfy their personal vendetta the parties some time tend to use the Courts. The same attitude was discouraged by the High Court in the impugned order. Moreover, when once the High Court has exercised its discretion and has refused to take cognizance, it does not appear befitting, in the circumstances, that the Court be forced to do so. If the lady has any grievance about any second marriage without her consent, there are other remedies in law as well.
4. With these remarks, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Qazi Naveed ul Islam vs District Judge, Gujrat and others 2023 PLD Supreme Court 298, 2023 PLJ SC 265
- Qazi Naveed ul Islam vs District Judge, Gujrat, etc 2023 SCP 32
- Muhammad Tariq vs Muhammad Ibrahim and another 2022 PCRLJ 1393