The Criminalization of Cruelty within the Malaysian and Pakistani

Family Laws: A Comparative Analysis

Ghulam Dastagir,

Faridah Hussain,

Daleleer Kaur Randawar

, Sheela Jayabalan

Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, UiTM, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Key-words: Criminalization, Cruelty, Family Law, Malaysia, Pakistan

Abstract: The Muslim Family laws of Malaysia and Pakistan are based on Shari’ah, however they are codified laws

administered by modern day judicial system. Under these Muslim family laws, cruelty or inhuman treatment

can be a fault-based ground for the dissolution of a marriage and an avenue for legal remedies. Cruelty causes

mental and emotional trauma and may create intolerable conditions within spouses, also detrimental to the

children. In Pakistan, the problem is that the intention of framers of the Muslim family law are of protection

of the innocent rather than to punish the transgressor, therefore, divorce is possible, however no retribution

for the offending spouse. Conversely, cruelty or ill-treatment is a punishable offence under the Islamic family

laws of Malaysia. Adopting descriptive and analytical qualitative case study approach for this exploratory

study, the authors have argued that family courts in Pakistan are under legal obligation to decide matrimonial

issues with inclusion of cruelty and an appropriate venue dealing family violence. Hence, with the more

appropriate sentencing approaches, this paper intends to introduce a new offence of cruelty or ill-treatment of

spouses into the Pakistan’s family laws.

1 INTRODUCTION

Family is a basic unit of Islamic society. Islam

recognizes the family system and its respect and give

importance attached thereto.(Hafiz Abdul Waheed v

Miss Asma Jahangir,1997) In an Islamic state like

Pakistan, the purpose and formation of family law

is to preserve the marriage bond because in Islam

it is a meritorious institution. If family suffered from

inequality and permanent conflicts among the

partners, it will become very difficult for its just

survival. For that reasons, to recognize and

guaranteeing women’s human rights, the constitution

of Islamic Republic of Pakistan provides the

protection of marriage, the family, the mother and the

child.(Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,

1973, Art’35)The Constitution of Pakistan allow and

guaranteed an adult woman free to marry according

to her choice and honour the right to seek

divorce.(Yefet, 2011) Due to this constitutional right

and legal permission, many women use their right to

choose their own spouse or seeking divorce from an

abusive husband.

The Family laws in Pakistan are based on the

Muslim personal laws that are relating to religions

(for Muslims, based on the primary sources of Islamic

law i.e. the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah) as well as

for Hindus, Christians and other religious groups

according to their faiths.(Hashmi, 2007) Family laws

in Pakistan are a mixture of codified law and

customary practices based on religious norms though

administered in a secular procedural framework of a

modern-day dispute resolution forum of the judiciary.

(Ali, 2002)

The one significant problem attached thereto is

that Pakistan’s Muslim family law doesn’t recognise

cruelty or ill-treatment of any of the spouse a

punishable offence. Subsequently, the purpose of this

article is to consider the areas of family law in which

cruelty or ill-treatment is material and to examine the

principles which guide courts in determining what

constitutes sufficient cruelty to entitle a complainant

to relief.

This paper will focuses on the cruelty clauses of

two countries, practicing Islamic Family laws within

their judicial systems, Pakistan and Malaysia, and

discusses the problem of the recognition of the cruelty

amongst the two countries and provide an analysis on

the recognition criteria on cruelty. Part I will discuss

the cruelty clauses in Pakistan within marriages and

Dastagir, G., Hussain, F., Randawar, D. and Jayabalan, S.

The Criminalization of Cruelty within the Malaysian and Pakistani Family Laws: A Comparative Analysis.

DOI: 10.5220/0010054402810286

In Proceedings of the International Law Conference (iN-LAC 2018) - Law, Technology and the Imperative of Change in the 21st Century, pages 281-286

ISBN: 978-989-758-482-4

281

divorces, and will offer examples of how cruelty will

be established through court decisions in the country.

Part II will provide considerations on cruelty form the

Malaysian perspectives, and analyse the cruelty

clauses into the family laws of Malaysia and will

argues if Pakistan to emulate the Malaysian family

law responses to cruelty as that is also essential to

Muslim personal laws. Part III will provide

discussion and analysis and finally, Part IV will looks

at possible solutions for ending the problem of cruelty

that distract marriages. There is now a growing trend

of punishing nonviolent behaviour, because it causes

serious emotional suffering, hence, an answer to some

of these concerns maybe to develop a new offence of

cruelty.

1.1 Materials and Methods

In order to achieve the objective of this paper, the

authors have adopted qualitative legal research

approach. This study is critical and analytical in

nature. For analysing the available data i.e. case law

and legislation, researcher have employed the

primary sources of doctrinal approach. Then, for the

secondary sources of materials, the authors have

referred to the monographs and journal articles. By

using descriptive, exploratory and content analysis

approach, researchers have examined the court cases,

their background, as well as the approach of the

courts players that had been determined. The findings

of this paper will reflect the researchers’ abilities to

illustrate the phenomenon.

1.2 Cruelty within Pakistani Family

Courts Jurisdictions

Matrimonial matters are involved delicate human

relations. They are emotional issues as well. In the

context of Pakistan it is hypothetical that women are

under privileged and generally oppressed section of

the society, because of that the concept of social

justice rather than legal justice be advanced in

matrimonial matters and these relations could not be

judged on legal factors alone. For innumerable

Muslim women who are trapped in unhappy

marriages, facing unspeakable misery, the

Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939(DMMA)

finally recognised those women’s right to marital

freedom. (Cherry, 2001) As acknowledged by the

Supreme Court, in the case of Abid Hussain v.

Additional District Judge Ali Pur (2006)the aim to

establish DMMA, 1939was to protect women from

prolonged and costly litigation, as such it aimed to put

a clog on the right of husband.

The DMMA is the most important piece of

legislation promulgated during British colonial India

in the area of Muslim Family Laws inherited by the

Pakistan when become sovereign state in 1947. The

DMMA consolidates and clarifies the provisions of

Muslim Law relating to the valid grounds for

dissolution of marriage in a suit filed by the wife.

Under the DMMA, there are ten grounds have been

given for dissolution of Muslim marriages.(Manzoor,

2014) Due to limitations, the authors only produce the

Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, (1939, s, 2

(viii)); (Abdul Hafeez v Shamaila Bibi 2013)that

provides cruelty as a ground for dissolution of

marriage, whenever the husband treats his wife with

cruelty as follows: -

(a) habitually assaults her or make her life

miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such

conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment,

(Sahibzada Sheheryar Abbasi v. Samia Abbasi

1992) or

(b) associates with women of evil repute or leads

an infamous life, (Abdul Hafeez v. Shamaila Bibi

and 2 others 2013) or

(Malik Tanveer Khan v Mst. Amber Liaquat

2009) or

(d) disposes of her property or prevents her

exercising her legal rights over it, (Shahana Bibi

v. Nadeem Shah,, 2015;Bibi Anwar Khatoon v.

Gulab Shah, 1988) or

(e) obstructs her in the observance of her religious

profession or practice, or

(f) if he has more wives than one, does not treat

her equitably in accordance with the injunctions

of the Qur’an.(Ali Ishfaq, 2014)

Pakistani courts while interpreting cruelty

emphasised that cruelty can be either physical, mental

or even by conduct, as mentioned in clauses (b), (c),

(d) and (e) provided by DMMA subjected to evidence

produced by the parties. Along with physical torture

and beating. Cruelty includes habitual use of abusive

and insulting language to the wife, more importantly,

mental cruelty is the worst.(Muhammad Arif Khan v

Shakoor Akhtar, 1999) In the case of Arif Khan v

Shakoor Akhtar, the Appellate Court held that: -

“a Family Court is well within its competence to

dissolve a marriage, on the basis of Khula

doctrine, if from the material brought on record

and the evidence led by the parties, comes to the

conclusion that spouses cannot live a happy and

harmonious life within the prescribed limits

ordained by God.”(Muhammad Arif Khan v

Shakoor Akhtar, 1999)

iN-LAC 2018 - International Law Conference 2018

282

In this case, the Appellate Court concluded that

the cruelty grounds taken by the respondent in the

instant case for dissolution of marriage are not proved

by the direct evidence however, at the same time it is

very different rather impossible to prove cruelty by

direct evidence. Cruelty could be felt by close

association with spouse by watching different

happenings during wedlock and their habits. Mental

torture by husband also would amount to cruelty and

want of compatibility and disharmony of feelings and

thoughts could also result into discomfort and

hardship to live a harmonious life. The Court

emphasised that cruelty could be proved by direct

evidence, though it was something to be inferred by

conduct, behaviour and temperament of husband with

wife while living together. (Muhammad Arif Khan v

Shakoor Akhtar, 1999)

Maltreatment has been the most popular divorce

ground, as provided in the case of Syed Imtiaz

Hussain Shah v Mst. Razia Begum (2011) The

Appellate Court observed that infliction of injury is

not required by the law. In matrimonial matters, the

Court have been treated false allegation against a wife

to be a cruelty which results into mental torture and

loss of mutual confidence. Long ago, in the case of

Muhammad Shariful Islam Khan v Suraya Begum,

(1963) the Supreme Court ruled that the mental

cruelty is the worst within matrimonial settings. In the

same vein, the false allegation by the husband of a

chased woman as to chastity of a chased woman cuts

to the heart. Mental torture by husband also would

amount to cruelty and want of compatibility and

hardship to live a harmonious life. (Muhammad Arif

Khan v ShakoorAkhtar, 1999)

1.3 Cruelty within Malaysian Family

Courts Jurisdictions

In Malaysia, unhappy marriage is a ground for

divorce. In fasakh there are some grounds for

applying divorce. One of the grounds is cruelty.

Illustrations of cruelty are mentioned in Section

52(1)(h) of the Islamic Family Law (Federal

Territories) Act 1984 (Act 303). Section 52(1)(h)

states:

(h) that the husband or wife treats her or him, as

the case may be, with cruelty, that is to say, Inter

alia-

(i) habitually assaults her or him or makes her or

his life miserable by cruelty of conduct;

(ii) associates with women or men of evil repute

or leads what, according to Hukum Syara’, is an

infamous life;

(iii) attempts to force the wife to lead an immoral

life;

(iv) disposes of her or his property or prevents her

or him from exercising her or his legal rights over

it;

(v) obstructs her or him in the observance of her

or his religious obligations or practice; or

(vi) if he has more than one wife, does not treat

her equitably in accordance with the requirements

of Hukum Syara’;

Within the Islamic Family Law, a victim spouse

can free herself from the bondage of her violent

marriage by applying for dissolution of marriage

or fasakh under the Islamic Family law (Federal

Territories) Act 1984 on the grounds that her husband

treated her cruelly.(Randawar,2015)Cases involving

cruelty may be physical violence, (Joan Mary

Sulaiman v Sulaiman,1993) mental abuse, (Khairul

Faezah bt Hj Abdul Majid v Muhammad Salleh bin

Bidin, 2005) physically and mentally torture.(Khairul

Faezah bt Hj Abdul Majid v Muhammad Salleh bin

Bidin, 2005) It is to be noted that sufficient proof such

as documentary evidence is needed to satisfy the

court for fasakh on ground of cruelty. In the absence

of sufficient evidence, the court may dismiss the

application for divorce on ground of cruelty.(Abdul

Hanif v Rabiah, 1996) For interpretations of the

provisions of the statute, take for example from the

British case of Yemshaw v Lewisham Borough of

London, the Supreme Court of United Kingdom held

that “domestic violence” was not limited to physical

violence but comprehensively to: “threatening or

intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse

which, directly or indirectly, may give rise to the risk

of harm”, as well as psychological harm. In the case

ofYeo Bee Lin v Lee Eng Chee, (2004)the High Court

of Malaysia was of the view that “when we talk about

'personal injuries' and 'injuries to his or her person’'

in s. 4A of Married Women Act, 1957, there can be

no distinction between injuries of a physical nature

and that of the mental variety; both are within this

definition. Hence, to distinguish between the two is

no longer relevant in the present day”. Section 127 of

the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act

1984 provides that any person who ill-treats his wife

commits an offence and shall be punished with a fine

not exceeding one thousand ringgit or with

imprisonment not exceeding six months or with both

such fine and imprisonment.

In Malaysia, the perpetrator of cruelty may also be

convicted under section 326 of the Penal Code (Act

574) if there is sufficient evidence that the victim

applicant/wife sustained serious injuries and

hospitalized. (PP v Md Rashid Harun, 2000) Other

The Criminalization of Cruelty within the Malaysian and Pakistani Family Laws: A Comparative Analysis

283

than the Penal Code (Act 574), Malaysia has enacted

Domestic Violence Act 1994 (Act 521). The Act aims

to provide legal protection in situations of domestic

violence and matters incidental thereto. The wife may

initiate legal proceedings against her abusive

husband. The wife may also applied for an injunction

to restrain husband from assaulting, harassing and

molesting her. She may also claim for damages.

(Mohamed Habibullah Mahmood v Faridah bte

Dato’ Talib, 2005)Moreover, under Married Women

Act 1957, which is also apply both Muslims and non-

Muslims, section 4A and 9 states that a spouse can be

prosecuted from offences ranging from murder to

common assault. On the other hand, for non-Muslims,

according to Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce)

Act, 1976 s 54(1) (b) states that if the respondent has

behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot

reasonably be expected to live with the respondent,

(for example molestation) the marriage has

irretrievably broken down.

To summarise, in Malaysia, it could be argued that

victim in cruelty cases may apply for divorce and

claim for damages. The wrongdoer may be sentence

to imprisonment for causing physical injury.

1.4 Results and Discussions

In worldview, the concept of cruelty has been slowly

transformed with the passage of time and the impact

of new ideas on to it based on a strictly rational

outlook of life by the development of modern life.

Cruelty will always be an uncertain part of the law of

divorce. Cruelty is a conduct that might make the

victim's life extremely uncomfortable and miserable.

For centuries cruelty was an acknowledged cause for

divorce, both physical torture and domestic battery or

even if mentally tormenting, the offending spouse

was widely considered unfair and unjust. (Ramsey,

2013)The problem is that the conduct which amounts

to cruelty has misunderstood profoundly. Statutes

that criminalise cruelty define it in terms of physical

hurt alone, and underestimate injuries inflicted

throughout the battering relationship and the context

of abuse. Moreover, the statutes have failed to

criminalise the true nature of cruelty that is a patterns

of power, control, and violence and have significant

impact on its victims. Though, it could be argued that

in cruelty, emotional, mental and psychological

agony and suffering can cause physical effects and

vice versa, physical pain and suffering can also cause

psychological and mental pain and sufferings.

(Tetlow, 2016)

Family law or personal laws, as they are more

commonly referred to, are particular reference to the

position of women in Pakistan.(Tetlow, 2016) The

problem is that it is built of the society that in

Pakistani family system, the men of the family (the

fathers, uncles and brothers) hold the right to make

marital decisions for their women. This is the reason

that more than 95 percent of all marriages in Pakistan

are arranged by male family members. (Khan,

2006) So as the case, contrary to legislative text and

despite clear injunctions and constitutional

guaranties, divorce is a matter of life and death for

Pakistani women. In Pakistan, a woman is considered

a burden and divorce is extremely shameful, which

results for many families refusing to aid or assist the

divorced woman. (Naz and Zia, 2008)

The finding and analysis of the statues on family

laws of both Pakistan and Malaysia suggested that

they have the same substance on cruelty, either on the

formation of cruelty clauses or of evidentiary

standards. To be proved cruelty, petitioners requires

strict burden of proof beyond any reasonable doubt as

required by their criminal justice systems. Some of

the cruelty clauses are intact with the respective penal

codes of both countries. The significance of

Malaysian Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories)

Act, 1984 is that through sections 127 and 128, both

of these provisions made cruelty is a punishable

offence. Moreover, Malaysia has an established

Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (Act 521) of

1994 who effectively deals with family violence

incidents more than two decades. Access to justice for

Malaysian women also have some advantages due to

its society’s shape where high education rate and

economic independent role makes Malaysian women

a visible and harassment is no more a significant issue

in this society.

On the other hand, in compare to Malaysian

women, the Pakistani sisters have suffered most due

to their passive role within families and society. They

are almost invisible in economic activities, having

lowest education rate in the world. In case of any

victimization in the hands of very people who

supposed to protect them from unnecessary abuse, the

whole situation makes their access to justice

impossible. Unfortunately, Pakistani women still lack

of any functional law on domestic violence until

today. Many efforts have been done so far to establish

any law on domestic violence, unfortunately all

efforts ended up with disappointments. In this

situation Pakistani women have very limited access to

justice and due to the prevailed tribal and feudal code

Pakistan is considered one of the worst country in the

world for women. (Shah, 2011)

The Pakistani woman is defined in terms of her

role as a mother and a wife and her worth is dependent

iN-LAC 2018 - International Law Conference 2018

284

on her marital status since her legal and social status

are tied to her husband’s will. Pakistani women have

fought for equal rights since inception, however, their

struggle for equal rights has been largely unsuccessful

because Pakistani women are still treated as second-

class citizens who do not deserve the same respect as

men have. The rights of the husband to judge, control,

and punish their wives were transcribed into books,

thus legitimating their subjugation through force.

(Cubbon, 2000). If that is the situation then the

empowerment of women will only begin from family.

If women enjoy respect, freedom of thought, full

participation in decision making in the family life,

free from all sort of violence within family and

outside home, consequently it will produce well

behaved responsible citizens of any society.

Since gender violence is mostly a family matter

and it gets aggravated during litigation hence the

family court must also have jurisdiction to entertain

application of a woman being harassed in the context

of their family dispute.(Hashmi, 2007) Family Courts

in Pakistan are special tribunals established for a

purpose, hence had powers to mould the relief and

grant injunctions in the interest of justice, even if not

asked.(Mohammad Ahamd v Samia bano, 2002)As

evidenced in the case of Mst. Neelam Nosheen v Raja

Muhammad Khaqaan, the Apex Court held that most

of the Pakistani population belongs to oppressed

class, predominantly lived in isolated and backward

regions where the petitioners could not have proper

legal assistance, so substantial responsibility lay on

the family courts in dealing with the family

matters.(Mst. Neelam Nosheen v Raja Muhammad

Khaqaan, 2002)In such situation justice was the

ultimate responsibility of the family courts so that

they have to deliver the same in even-handed matters.

1.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

In a society where due to prevailing patriarchal

culture and norms a battered wife could be deterred

from taking action to protect herself, for example, to

file a suit for protection, or calling the police, because

of the threats or fear of any harm or filing criminal

charges, there must be a mechanism and remedy

which could be availed by the victim spouse. In

theory, once a spouse becomes a victim of torture and

violence from the other, in that case that act should be

considered as matrimonial offence and criminal

sanctions should be visited upon the guilty spouse.

(Hor, 2011)This is because it is to be believed that

people should be held accountable for their actions

harmful for an individual or against society and the

criminal justice system should establish such

accountability and consider it. (Layne, 2015)

In Pakistan, cruelty has many facets which covers

penal liabilities i.e. and became a subject for family

courts when the Family Court Act, 1964 was

amended in 2002. In practice, cases relating to cruelty

that covers any form of family violence were heard

by the ordinary criminal and civil courts in the

traditional administration of criminal justice.

Unfortunately the amendments that introduced in

2002 into the Pakistan’s Family Court Act, 1964, no

court have taken cognizance of cases family violence

till this date. The establishment of family courts have

a purpose that is to provide protection to the weaker

member of the society from tyranny, highhandedness

and upper hand of man. In this way, as a senior judge

of the Court of Sessions in Pakistan asserts, to

introducing severe cruelty and other family violence

provisions into the family law could be considered

remarkable because women victims might feel more

comfortable alleging family violence issues into the

family courts. (Munir, 2006)

There remains a need for further and more

comprehensive amendments in family laws, so that

this article proposes the induction of an offence of

cruelty into the Pakistani family law statutes with

appropriate sentencing approach and provisions that

will helpful in progressing the criminal justice

response to matrimonial offences and Pakistan has to

emulate the Section 127 and 128 of the Islamic

Family Law (Federal Territories) Act, 1984 into their

Family Justice System which sanctioned prison

sentence as well as fine for guilty spouse. In principle,

physical or emotional abuse occurs within the family

caused severe distress, in that case the justice system

in Pakistan must provide an outlet for the

criminalisation of cruelty in the era of 21

century.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is part of first author’s Ph.D study at

Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International

Islamic University Malaysia. The authors would like

to thank Prof. Dr. Najibah Mohd Zin and Asst. Prof.

Dr. Iqbal Abdul Wahab of Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah

of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia

for their guidance, vision and sharing ideas.

REFERENCES

Ali Ishfaq, (2014). Manual of Family Laws, fifth Edition

(Lahore: Imran Law Book House).

The Criminalization of Cruelty within the Malaysian and Pakistani Family Laws: A Comparative Analysis

285

Ali, S. S. (2002). Testing the Limits of Family Law Reform

in Pakistan: A Critical Analysis of the Muslim Family

Laws Ordinance 1961. International Survey of Family

Law, 317.

Cherry, K. (2001). Marriage and Divorce Law in Pakistan

and Iran: The Problem of Recognition. Tulsa Journal of

Comparative & International Law, 9, 319.

Cubbon, S. (2000). The Dismantling of Patriarchy. UCL

Jurisprudence Review. 253.

Daleleer Kaur Randawar, Dr. [2015] Law Reform

(Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976: Application with

regards to Violence within a Home, 5 The Malayan Law

Journal, lxviii [Accessed through LexisNexis] retrieved

on 23 July 2018.

Hor, M. (2011). Relatively Criminal: Spouses and the

Criminal Process. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies,

37.

Khan, T. S. (2006). Beyond Honour: a Historical

Materialist Explanation of Honour Related Violence.

Oxford University Press, USA.at page 237.

Layne, S. R. (2015). What Happened to Till Death Do Us

Part: Bringing Back Fault as the Exclusive Ground for

Divorce. Journal of Law & Social Deviance, 9, 80.

Munir, M. A. (2006). Family Courts in Pakistan in Search

of Better Remedies for Women and Children. Lawasia

Journal., 191.

Ramsey, C. B. (2013). The Exit Myth: Family Law, Gender

Roles, and Changing Attitudes Toward Female Victims

of Domestic Violence. Michigan Journal of Gender &

Law, 20, 1.

Tetlow, T. (2016). Criminalizing Private Torture. William

& Mary Law Review, 58, 183.

Yefet, K. C. (2011). The Constitution and Female-Initiated

Divorce in Pakistan: Western Liberalism in Islamic

Garb, 34, Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 553, 558.

Zeeshan Manzoor, (2014) Women and the Related Laws,

(Karachi: Mega Publishers).

Reports

Naz, Rukhshanda and Maliha Zia. 2008. Muslim Family

Laws in Pakistan. Aurat Foundation. [online] URL:

<http://www.musawah.org/sites/default/files/Pakistan-

report%20for%20Home%20Truths.pdf> retrieved on

22 July 2018

Shah Saeed, “The Worst places in the world for women:

Pakistan”. The Guardian, 14 June 2011 [Access online]

Available from

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/14/worst-

places-in-the-world-for-women-pakistan> accessed on

23 April, 2018

Syeda Viquar-un-nisa Hashmi, ‘The Impact of Family

Laws on the Rights of Divorced Women in Pakistan’

National Commission on the Status of Women [Online]

URL:<http://www.ncsw.gov.pk/previewpublication/2>

retrieved on 20 July 2018.

…

Legislations

The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939.

Domestic Violence Act, 1994 (Act 521).

The Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act, 1984

(Act 303)

Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964,

Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, 1976 (Act 164).

Malaysian Penal Code, (Act 574).

The Married Women Act, (1957).

Case laws

Abdul Hafeez v. Shamaila Bibi 2013 MLD 1148 Azad-

Kashmir.

Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge Ali Pur, District

Muzaffar Grah 2006 SCMR 100.

Abdul Hanif v Rabiah (1996) 11 JH 47.

Bibi Anwar Khatoon v. Gulab Shah and 2 others PLD 1988

Karachi 602.

Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Miss Asma Jahangir, PLD 1997

Lah.301.

Joan Mary Sulaiman v Sulaiman (1993) 10 JH 8 86).

Khairul Faezah bt Hj Abdul Majid v Muhammad Salleh bin

Bidin [2005] 1 ShLR 171.

Malik Tanveer Khan v. Mst. Amber Liaquat 2009 CLC

1210 Peshawar.

Mohammad Ahamd v. Samia bano, 2002 CLC 209.

Muhammad Afzal v. Additional District Judge Attock,

2010 CLC 369 Lahore.

Muhammad Arif Khan v. ShakoorAkhtar, 1999 YLR 985.

Mohamed Habibullah Mahmood v Faridah bte Dato’ Talib

[2005] 1 SHLR 71.

Mst. NeelamNosheen v. Raja Muhammad Khaqaan 2002

MLD 784.

Muhammad Shariful Islam Khan v. Suraya Begum, PLD

1963 Dhaka 947.

PP v Md Rashid Harun [2000] 3 MLJ 503

Sahibzada Sheheryar Abbasi v. Samia Abbasi 1992 MLD

159.

Shahana Bibi v. Nadeem Shah and 3 others, 2015 MLD

1623.

Syed Imtiaz Hussain Shah v. Mst. Razia Begum, 2011 SCR

233.

Yeo Bee Lin v Lee Eng Chee (2004) 1 CLJ 691.

Yemshaw v Lewisham Borough of London [2011] UKSC

3 [28].

Zarina bt. Shaari v Mohd Yusoff b Omar [2005] 4 ShLR

iN-LAC 2018 - International Law Conference 2018

286