Christian divorce law: LHC says no issues in rehearing plea
Chief justice says case fixed for rehearing for clarification
Chief justice says case fixed for rehearing for clarification. PHOTO: EXPRESS
LAHORE:
The Lahore High Court chief justice has dispelled the impression of any confusion on allowing the petition on the Christian Divorce Act, saying he had fixed the plea for listening to arguments on some more documents.
On May 23, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah had issued a short order restoring Section 7 of the Christian Divorce Act of 1869, earlier omitted through an ordinance promulgated during General Ziaul Haq’s rule following which Christian couples could only file for separation or divorce if they accused their partners of adultery.
Instead of releasing the detailed judgment, the court later decided to fix the petition for rehearing.
On Monday, the LHC chief justice said there was no confusion on allowing the petition when Sheraz Zaka, the petitioner’s counsel, claimed that after reading about fixing of the case for a rehearing, many Christian community members were asking him about it.
He said he had assured the families that the chief justice himself had announced allowing the petition in open court and reserved the detailed judgment.
The chief justice said there was no question for not accepting the petition and he just fixed the case again as he wanted some more documents for clarification on some points. He directed a law officer, appearing on behalf of the government, to give him the required documents.
In the short order issued on May 23, Chief Justice Shah, then an LHC judge, said the omission of Section 7 was in violation of the constitution.
After omission of Section 7, Section 10 of the 1981 Ordinance was introduced according to which Christian couples could divorce only on one ground that their counterparts are involved in adultery.
Sources in the LHC told The Express Tribune that about 27 pleas have been filed in the LHC for getting a copy of the detailed judgment. Twenty-five applications have been filed for personal use while the remaining two were filed to challenge this judgment before the Supreme Court.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 20th, 2016.
The Lahore High Court chief justice has dispelled the impression of any confusion on allowing the petition on the Christian Divorce Act, saying he had fixed the plea for listening to arguments on some more documents.
On May 23, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah had issued a short order restoring Section 7 of the Christian Divorce Act of 1869, earlier omitted through an ordinance promulgated during General Ziaul Haq’s rule following which Christian couples could only file for separation or divorce if they accused their partners of adultery.
Instead of releasing the detailed judgment, the court later decided to fix the petition for rehearing.
On Monday, the LHC chief justice said there was no confusion on allowing the petition when Sheraz Zaka, the petitioner’s counsel, claimed that after reading about fixing of the case for a rehearing, many Christian community members were asking him about it.
He said he had assured the families that the chief justice himself had announced allowing the petition in open court and reserved the detailed judgment.
The chief justice said there was no question for not accepting the petition and he just fixed the case again as he wanted some more documents for clarification on some points. He directed a law officer, appearing on behalf of the government, to give him the required documents.
In the short order issued on May 23, Chief Justice Shah, then an LHC judge, said the omission of Section 7 was in violation of the constitution.
After omission of Section 7, Section 10 of the 1981 Ordinance was introduced according to which Christian couples could divorce only on one ground that their counterparts are involved in adultery.
Sources in the LHC told The Express Tribune that about 27 pleas have been filed in the LHC for getting a copy of the detailed judgment. Twenty-five applications have been filed for personal use while the remaining two were filed to challenge this judgment before the Supreme Court.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 20th, 2016.