While imposing a hefty cost of Rs 1 million on a petitioner, the Supreme Court ruled that using judicial proceedings as an instrument of coercion and harassment is totally impermissible. In a seven-page judgment written by Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, the court noted that the petitioner forced the respondent, a young woman, to undergo repeated, invasive and degrading scrutiny through a defense that was at the same time found to be baseless.
"This use of judicial procedures as an instrument of coercion and harassment is totally unacceptable. To mark the court’s firm disapproval, to compensate the defendant for the unnecessary hardship caused, and to deter the repetition of such frivolous and vexatious litigation, this petition is dismissed with exemplary costs." said. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi heard the matter. The family court had decreed a claim for boasting of marriage and dismissed the petitioner’s claim for restitution of conjugal rights. The high court upheld the findings of the lower courts. The court noted that the facts of the case were not only unusual but also deeply disturbing. He noted that the respondent/plaintiff, a young woman, alleged that the petitioner – her paternal uncle (phupha) – had taken advantage of a relationship of trust, proximity and dominance to sexually assault her. The record further revealed that the petitioner, a married man with children, attempted to present himself as the legitimate husband of the respondent by claiming alleged Shariah nikah on April 3, 2020. Significantly, the legitimate wife of the petitioner is the respondent’s paternal aunt (phupho). Even according to the petitioner’s own account, the alleged marriage would be within the prohibited degree and would not be permissible during the subsistence of the previous marriage. The court noted that in an attempt to overcome this inherent legal impediment, the petitioner filed a totally baseless petition for divorce from his lawful wife. Rather than strengthening his case, this reflected an attempt to adapt the facts and fabricate a narrative to lend a color of legality to what appeared to be an illegal and coercive relationship. The judgment further records that the petitioner was declared the biological father of a minor son born to the respondent.
"In any case, even if the petitioner’s version of marriage is discarded (as the lower courts have simultaneously done), he cannot be allowed to evade the consequences of his own conduct.
"The minor child is an innocent life and cannot be left unprotected. The law does not allow a child to be deprived of sustenance, dignity and legal support simply because the relationship between the parents is disputed, illegal or the subject of criminal proceedings.
"It is an established legal principle that the right to maintenance belongs to the child and is based on considerations of welfare, justice and equity."
The court held that once biological paternity is established, the corresponding obligation to support the child follows as a necessary legal consequence.
"A biological parent cannot be allowed to deny responsibility or seek refuge behind technical arguments of legitimacy, nor can this court lend its discretionary jurisdiction to a litigant attempting to convert an illegal or coercive act into a civil right.
"In this regard, the law draws a distinction between a “legitimate child” and a “biological child.” A biological child is genetically related to the father, while legitimacy refers to the legal status of the birth within a legal marriage."
The ruling also highlighted that human dignity is inviolable and enjoys constitutional protection under Article 14 of the Constitution. "The courts cannot serve as passive forums for the perpetuation of social prejudices, nor can they allow their process to become a means of inflicting secondary victimization on women who come to the courts seeking vindication of their legitimate rights.
"Frivolous accusations and fabricated allegations, particularly those aimed at undermining a woman’s identity, character and dignity, cannot be tolerated in any civilized justice system.
"Furthermore, in all matters relating to children, the primary consideration remains the well-being and best interests of the child.
"This approach is consistent with Pakistan’s constitutional obligations under Articles 9, 14, 25 and 35 of the Constitution, as well as its international commitments under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which requires the protection of children without discrimination."
