On Monday, the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) denied a plea seeking an injunction against Prime Minister Imran Khan’s marriage based on ten questions about Islamic law and constitutional provisions.
The petition was declared non-maintainable by a three-member FSC bench consisting of Chief Justice Mohammad Noor Meskanzai, Justice Dr Syed Mohammad Anwer, and Justice Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, who noted that the petition was “not filed in accordance with the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules 1981.”
The court order also listed the petitioner’s ten questions, which included “whether the Holy Quran empowers a Muslim wife to seek dissolution of marriage from her husband, whether a Muslim wife who is a mother of children can seek Khula from her husband for a second marriage, whether the Holy Quran acknowledges her as a mother of leftover children, and whether Nikkah after Khula is in accordance with the constitutional provisions.”
The petitioner’s questions are deemed ‘absurd, disparaging, and completely irrelevant’ by the Shariat court.
The petitioner mentioned only one passage of Surah Taha to support his claim, according to the court. The court noted that “this verse has no connection whatsoever with the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula,” which was intended to be the major issue raised in the petition.
The bench was of the opinion that the questionnaires were contrary to the established procedure, and that majority of the questions were irrelevant and had nothing to do with FSC business.
Some of the inquiries were “absurd, insulting, and completely irrelevant,” according to the court, while two queries about Nikkah were “ambiguous, unimaginable, and not understood, rather [they] were not supposed to be worded at all.”
The bench, on the other hand, was of the opinion that “the petitioner may file a separate suit by challenging the comparable provisions incorporated in Nikkahnama if so instructed” in order to obtain any relief.
The petitioner was needed to prove any similar statute or provision of the law enacted and implemented, either collectively or individually, that ran contrary to the injunctions of the Holy Quran or the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, according to the court’s order (peace be upon him).
The bench observed that Section 10 of the Family Courts Act related to Khula had previously been settled by the court and “is a past and closed chapter.” “The petitioner may become a party in the appeal currently before the Supreme Court’s Shariat Appellate Bench, if so advised,” it said.
The petitioner had “not cited any specific provision of law that is repugnant to the injunctions of the Quran and Sunnah as required by the Constitution, as elaborated in the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981,” according to the judgement. Following that, it dismissed the petition, ruling it “unmaintainable.”