Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2026 SHC 1428. In this matter between Const. P. 3845/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Muzammil (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 3845/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 1428 PARTIES: Muzammil (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 10-JUL-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 1

ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI C.P No.D-3845 of 2026 (Muzammil v Province of Sindh & others) ______________________________________________________________ Date Order With Signature Of Judge ______________________________________________________________ Before:- Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhary

Date of hearing and order:-10.07.2026

None present for the petitioner. Ms. Uzma Abbas, advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Abro, AAG along with DSP (Legal) Sajid Gujjar on behalf of AIGP Legal CPO Sindh and SI Imran, PS Liaquatabad. Minahil Zahid present in Court. -------------

O R D E R Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J The petitioner, Muzammil son of Muhammad Yasin, filed the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking quashment of FIR No.193/2026 registered under Sections 364 -A PPC and 3/4 of the Child Marriage Act at Police Station Liaquatabad, along with directions for protection and custody of Minahil Zahid, whom he claimed to be his wife. 2. None present on behalf of the petitioner, however o n the previous date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and submitted that the petitioner solemnized marriage wi th Minahil Zahid on 28.03.2026 with her free will and in accordance with Sharia and law. It was contended that the FIR lodged by the father of the girl was false, motivated and intended to harass the petitioner, while the girl had been unlawfully detained by her family. The petitioner alleged violation of his fundamental rights and sought appropriate protection from the respondents. 3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, Mst Minahil Zahid and the Investigating Officer appeared. The Investigating Office r submitted that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C has already been recorded . The Investigating Officer stated that the progress report would be submitted before the competent Court for appropriate order based on the statement of lady. 3. Today, the p etitioner and his counsel remained absent despite a call, which shows that they have lost interest in the matter, therefore this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the case in default. 4. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the petition i n default shall not be construed as an adjudication upon the validity, legality, or status of the marriage

2

between the petitioner and Mst. Minahil Zahid, if any nor shall it prejudice any claim or defence available to either party before the competent forum. 6. The question regarding the subsistence, validity, or otherwise of the purported marriage, including all connected matrimonial issues, shall remain open to be determined by the competent Family Court in accordance with law, keeping in view the latest decision made b y the Hon’ble Federal Constitutional Court in the relevant legal context which needs to be looked into by the concerned Court, where brought into knowledge. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matrimonial di spute or the allegations contained in the FIR, the instant petition is dismissed in default due to non-prosecution and non-appearance of the petitioner and his counsel. JUDGE JUDGE Shahzad Soomro

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant