Case: Muhammad Akhtar Shah v. Judge Family Court, Kot Addu & Others
Citation: 2025 MLD 114
Date: October 3, 2024
Court: Lahore High Court, Multan Bench
Judge: Justice Asim Hafeez
Table of Contents
- Background
- What the Petitioner Said
- What the Woman Said
- Court’s Review of Evidence
- Statement of Nikah Khawan
- Statement Under Section 164 CrPC
- Whose Statement Did the Court Believe?
- Relevant Case Law
- Final Decision
- Profile: Advocate Muhammad Amin
Background
Muhammad Akhtar Shah stated that he wed a woman who was employed at his clinic.
The woman denied it, claiming she was made to sign legal documents against her will.
She requested that the court declare that there was never a marriage.
What the Petitioner Said
According to Shah, a legitimate nikah was held. In addition to presenting a Nikah Nama, he brought up the woman’s previous admissions of marriage. Additionally, he cited a statement made by Nikah Khawan in a related criminal matter.
What the Woman Said
She denied the marriage claim. She claimed Shah used threats to kidnap her. She claims that she was under pressure to sign documents. Shah took advantage of her employment at his clinic.
Court’s Review of Evidence
The court discovered holes in Shah’s account. He didn’t present any witnesses from the nikah day. The lawyer who was supposed to be in the office for the nikah never showed up. Arshad, one of the witnesses, acknowledged making a false statement under duress. He was not credible in his evidence.
Statement of Nikah Khawan
In a criminal prosecution, Shah cited a previous statement made by Nikah Khawan. Shah did not, however, challenge the Nikah Khawan over that remark in family court. The Nikah Khawan testified against him in court. Thus, the court disregarded the earlier assertion.
Statement Under Section 164 CrPC
Shah pointed to a statement the woman gave under Section 164.
But he failed to prove she gave it freely.
No lawyer confirmed her consent or presence in court.
The court didn’t find it reliable.
Whose Statement Did the Court Believe?
The woman didn’t change.
Shah, she claimed, employed fear and threats.
Her testimony was more credible.
Her version was accepted by the court over Shah’s.
Relevant Case Law
The petitioner relied on Farhat Jabeen v. Muhammad Safdar (2011 SCMR 1073).
But the court said those facts didn’t match this case.
It followed Matloob Hussain v. Mst. Shahida (PLD 2006 SC 489) instead.
Final Decision
The court found no proof of a valid marriage.
It saw no legal fault in the lower court rulings.
It dismissed the petition.
Profile: Advocate Muhammad Amin
Muhammad Amin is a well-known name in the legal community and is based at Tehkal on University Road in Peshawar. His areas of expertise are criminal and family law, and he represents clients in cases including domestic violence, divorce, nikah validation, and constitutional petitions.
Having spent years in the courtroom, he approaches each case with a strategic and pragmatic approach. Because of his expertise, legal knowledge, and honesty, his clients have faith in him. He offers powerful legal counsel and effective defense in cases involving delicate family conflicts or major criminal accusations.
Contact Details:
📍 Office: Tehkal, University Road, Peshawar
📞 Phone (Zong): +92 313 9708019