States Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 applies to all forms of talaq.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that a divorce can be revoked within 90 days, regardless of its form, under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (MFLO).
The court has clarified that Section 7 of the MFLO applies to all forms of talaq, including talaq-e-bidat (instant triple talaq).
Section 7(1) of the MFLO states that when a husband pronounces “talaq in any form”, he is under a legal obligation to notify the wife of such pronouncement in writing and give her a copy.
Section 7(3) then provides that the talaq, unless expressly or otherwise revoked earlier, shall not come into force until the expiration of ninety days from the date on which the notice was given.
According to a verdict issued by a three-member court, divorce does not take effect immediately after it is pronounced and only takes effect after 90 days, unless it is revoked earlier.
The verdict written by Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui built on previous landmark rulings to emphasize that the legislation aims to prevent hasty or impulsive divorces and provide a window for reconciliation.
The court also ruled that a wife with a delegated right of divorce has the same powers as a husband.
According to Section 8 of the MFLO, when the husband delegates the right of divorce to the wife, she has the right to exercise it with all the rights and limitations applicable to the husband.
the case
Petitioner Muhammad Hassan Sultan and Morial Shah were married in 2016 and later lived in New York. The husband had delegated an unconditional right of divorce to the wife through clause 18 of the nikahnama, a legal option available in Pakistan.
In June 2023, marital problems arose and the wife returned to Karachi with their young daughter.
On July 3, 2023, she issued a divorce notice under Section 7(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (MFLO).
Under the law, a divorce does not take effect immediately and only takes effect after 90 days from the date of notification, unless the parties reconcile or the party initiating the divorce revokes.
During this period, the husband filed a custody proceeding in a New York court, which ordered the wife and child to return to New York.
Subsequently, on August 10, 2023, the wife withdrew her divorce notice. The Chairman of the Arbitration Council in Karachi accepted the withdrawal and resolved the proceedings on August 11, 2023 (“First Order”).
Subsequently, on August 23, 2023, the husband attempted to issue his own Section 7 divorce notice.
In this second set of proceedings, the local Union Committee ultimately concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because the wife resided in New York and, according to rules and a government SRO, divorce proceedings involving overseas spouses must be handled by Pakistan’s Mission abroad.
Therefore, the President resolved this second case on January 3, 2024 (“Second Order”).
The petitioner challenged both the orders before the Sindh High Court, but his constitutional petition was dismissed. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.
One of the legal issues before the SC was whether a divorce (talaq) initiated in any manner can be revoked within the 90-day period under Section 7 of the MFLO;
The court also had to decide whether the same rule applies to a divorce initiated by a wife exercising delegated powers, that is, whether she can also revoke it.
He also needed to answer whether the Karachi Arbitration Council had jurisdiction to process the husband’s second divorce notice when the wife was living in New York and whether the wife’s withdrawal was in bad faith because she subsequently filed divorce proceedings in New York.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that the wife could issue a notice under Article 7(1); allow the 90-day period to elapse and revoke the divorce at any time before the 90 days expire.
He said that since the delegation in this case was expressly “unconditional”, the wife also had the right to revoke the divorce. However, he declared that the Karachi Arbitration Council lacked jurisdiction over the husband’s subsequent divorce notice.
Rule 3(b) of the MFLO Rules provides that jurisdiction in divorce matters lies with the Council of the Union where the wife resides at the time of the pronouncement.
At that time, the wife undoubtedly lived in New York.
According to an SRO issued by the federal government, Pakistan’s foreign missions act as arbitration boards for matters involving overseas Pakistanis. Therefore, only the Pakistani Mission in New York could process the husband’s divorce notice.
The Supreme Court held that the wife’s subsequent motives or actions (such as filing a foreign proceeding) cannot undermine a legal revocation within the 90-day period. Neither the Arbitration Council nor the SHC, in constitutional jurisdiction, could consider such allegations.
