If the male and female is get married in the court with the permission of the court without the permission of wali/parents this is called court marriage. Generally those couple comes in the court for the marriage whose parents don’t want their daughter to get marriage with that guy with whom their daughter loves him and want to marry at any cost. Therefore in the absence of the consent of parents of the couples especially the parents of the girl when forbade their girl to marry the specific guy than it happened. Sometimes when the girl contracted the marriage without the permission and consent of the parents, they lodge the false FIR for abduction of the girl and committing the zina against the newly husband of their daughter and his family for creating harassment and sometime get divorce forcibly. However on the statement of the girl the FIR is quashed accordingly.
The constitution of Pakistan, the law of land, Islam and Muslim Family Law allow to every adult person to get marry on his/her own choice, accord and freewill. The Superior Courts called that girl sui juirs and accepted their marriage without the consent of parents. And the Courts have accepted the minimum age 16 of the girl for marriage and hold that 16 years girl and above is capable to contract her marriage as per her own wish, freewill and consent.
For the purpose of Court marriage the girl have to appear in the court and have to give statement in the court before the Magistrate /Oath Commissioner / Justice of Peace etc. that she is going to marry with her own choice, freewill and accord, she is major, adult, and without no use of intoxicant she is deposing and no one has abducted, kidnapped. Thereafter the marriage is solemnized as per religious procedure. If the couples are Muslims then Nikahkhawan/Qazi solemnize the marriage in the presence of witnesses, if the couples are Christian then the father/padri solemnize the marriage if the couple are Hindu or any other community then the marriage is solemnized as per their religious way. After this the couples are allowed to go their homes and thereafter the said marriage certificate /Nikahnama is registered in the concern authority and return to the couple.
Iqbal International Law Services help to couples to become as husband and wife thorugh court marraige process. you can contact us round the clock on mobile phone or whatsapp No.+92-333-2171556 or send us email on email@example.com and make a appointment
Section 7 family court act, Art. 128 of Qanoon Shahadat order 1984—— DNA Test—Scope—Suit for recovery of dowry articles— Dower amount and maintenance for herself and for mniors was filed by respondent wife and the same was pending trail before family court— Petitioner/husband during pendency of the suit disowned two miors daughters and sought permission to condict DNA Test—Application of petitioner /husband was dismissed by family court as wella s by lower appellate court—Validtiy— Birth certificates of two minors girls were brought on record which depicted that both mionrs girls were born when plaintiff was legally wedded wife of the defendant and he did not dispute the same— Plea that minors girls were not born out of the wedlock of parties was raised for the first time in weitten statement—Nothing was brought on record from the side of petitoner/husband to establish that he had disputed legitimacy of children soon after their birth—Petitoiner /husband remained silent till he filed written statement in the suit. DNA Test was always conducted with the consent of the person concerned and no such consent was available. Once consent was not given DNA Test could not be conducted—High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by two courts below. Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances
Section 13 of Defamation Ordinance 2002, Order VII Rule 10 CPC—Defamation—Damages— Jurisdiction of Civil Court— Plaint return of – scope— Civil Court accepted application under O.VII Rule 10 CPC and returned the plaint—Contention of Plaintiff was that it was option of the aggrieved person to avail remedy by filing suit under section 9 of CPC or under Defamation Ordinance 2002—Validity—Civil court was court of ultimate jurisdiction—Neither there was any repealing clause nor ouster of jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit filed before in with regard to damages on account of defamation—If in respect of same dispute/litigation general law and special law were in field, special law would prevail subject to condition that special law contained provisions of ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts— aggrieved person therefore, had option either to opt for redressal against defamatory action before court of general jurisdiction i.e civil court or under the special law—jurisdiction of civil court covered all kinds of civil litigation on the strength and force of section 9 CPC. Plaintiff had availed the option of the civil court but his plaint was returned while misinterpreting the law—impugned order was not sustainable in circumstances which was set aside and matter was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law—Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Section 497, 498, 87, 88 Cr. P.C …. Bail refusal of—absconsion of accused could not be refused only on the ground of absconsion—it was yet to be decided while keeping in view the facts, circumstances and merits of the case—absconder, though would lose some normal rights of bail but over all circumstanes had to be seen wihile deciding bail matter— Police and Trial court was to take the steps mentioned in section 87, 88 Cr.P.C to procure the attendance of accused and complete proceedings— If accused would become fugitive from law, it was obligatory on the trail court o initiate the proceedings under section 87, 88 Cr.P.C unless said action was taken accused could not be declared an absconder— Bail of accused could not be refused merely on the ground of absconsion, particailly when the process provided in the criminal Procedure Code 1898 for absconder had not been completed..
Protective Bail… Fundamental right— scope— access to competent court is a fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution—refusal to grant protective bail tantamount to denial of right to access to justice, which is fundamental to and an integral part of rule of law.