Muhmmad Jameel vs The Adj etc.

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

JUDGMENT SHEET

LAHORE HIGH COURT

BAHAWALPUR BENCH BAHAWALPUR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.6494/2025

Muhammad Jamil Versus Additional District Judge etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing: 04.06.2026 Petitioner by: Mr. Muhammad Kamran, Advocate.

Respondent Malik Muhammad Khalid Dawanj, No.3 by: Advocate.

Anwaar Hussain, J. Respondent No.3 (“the respondent- plaintiff”) filed a suit for jactitation of marriage with the averments that she was abducted and compelled to contract marriage against her will, whereas the petitioner asserts that the parties had developed a consensual relationship, which culminated into a voluntary elopement and love marriage. The petitioner also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the suits were consolidated. Upon recording of the evidence, the Trial Court, through judgment dated 07.12.2023, dismissed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff by proceeding on the premise that the marriage stood established, by the petitioner, through production of Nikahnama; that the parties belong to same caste ()برادری having prior acquaintance; and treated the controversy as one relating to the dissolution of the marriage. The Appellate Court below, however, through judgment dated 27.08.2025, reversed the said findings and decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff,

holding that the alleged marriage had not been shown to be the result of free and voluntary consent.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged nikah stood proved through the Nikahnama as well as through filing of harassment petition by the respondent-plaintiff (Exh. D5), and submits that the findings recorded by the Trial Court should be restored. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned judgment and argues that the real controversy was not the execution of the Nikahnama but whether the respondent-plaintiff had freely consented to the marriage. He points out that criminal proceedings were initiated by the family of the respondent-plaintiff, and the respondent-plaintiff subsequently filed application (Exh. P3) for recording of her statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Code, 1898 (“Cr.PC”), which clearly depicts that the respondent-plaintiff was abducted and was detained against her will, by the petitioner.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.The principal question arising in the present petition is as under:

“What is the correct approach for a Court while appreciating evidence in cases where an alleged love marriage is relied upon by one party and allegations of abduction, coercion or forced marriage are raised by the other?”

5.This Court is of the view that the disputes of this nature, forming subject matter of this petition, often carry an initial appearance of validity on account of documentary evidence such as a registered Nikahnama or filing of petition for harassment by the female(s), which cannot be easily brushed aside. However,

where the very foundation of the alleged marriage is challenged on the ground of absence of free consent, the Court cannot confine its inquiry to such documents alone. The question whether consent was genuine, voluntary and free from any coercion must be examined in the light of the entire attending circumstances, prior or after solemnization of the purported nikah.

6.In the present case, the petitioner has consistently maintained that the parties had developed a consensual relationship prior to the marriage and had voluntarily eloped. Yet the record does not disclose any convincing material regarding the origin or development of such relationship inasmuch as this is not a case where the parties were shown to be close relatives, neighbours, classmates, co-workers or otherwise moving within the same social circle from which familiarity and association could naturally be inferred, leading to an affectionate bonding. On the contrary, in present case, the parties belonged to different localities, separated by a considerable distance—approximately more than 100 KM, hence, mere fact that they belong to same caste ( )برادریis of no significance. Therefore, while dealing with such cases, where the parties are completely strangers, the Courts are obligated to inquire as to how the alleged relationship originated and ultimately matured into a decision to contract marriage against wishes of the family. While the law does not require proof of a relationship through call records, social media exchanges, photographs or other forms of electronic communication, the complete absence of any material explaining the genesis of the alleged relationship remains a relevant circumstance while evaluating the plea of a consensual love marriage. Absence of any prior connection between the parties, becomes significant qua explanation as to how the alleged relationship came into existence. In the present case, no such

explanation is forthcoming from the record, which substantially undermines the petitioner’s plea that the marriage was the product of a pre-existing consensual relationship.

7.Equally significant is the conduct of the respondent-plaintiff after the alleged nikah. Filing of a harassment petition is undoubtedly relevant evidence, but it cannot be treated as conclusive evidence, in isolation of the surrounding circumstances. The evidentiary value of such harassment petition has to be assessed in conjunction with the subsequent conduct of the parties and other contemporaneous events appearing on the record. In the present case, proceedings seeking recovery of the respondent- plaintiff were initiated, criminal cases were registered by the family of the respondent-plaintiff, who also appeared before the competent court for recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC that she was abducted by the petitioner and forced into a marriage, against her will. Such conduct also constitutes a relevant circumstance while determining whether the alleged consent reflected in an appearance in harassment proceedings was truly voluntary. In such situation, a suit for takzeeb-e-nikah cannot ordinarily be transformed into one for dissolution of marriage where the plaintiff’s case is that no valid marriage ever came into existence.

8.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court below are based upon a proper appreciation of the evidence and do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of the material available on the record, which needs to be preferred over the findings of the Trial Court. Case reported as Mst. Farah Naz v. Judge Family Court, Sahiwal and others (PLD 2006 SC 457) is referred in this regard. No jurisdictional defect, illegality or perversity has been pointed

out which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

9.For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court below are maintained. Parties shall bear their own costs.

(ANWAAR HUSSAIN)

Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge Akram