A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi dismissed the appeal filed by Muhammad Hassan Sultan, who had challenged two orders issued by the Union/Arbitration Council in Karachi. The controversy stemmed from a notice of divorce issued by his wife on July 3, 2023, which she withdrew on August 10—well within the statutory timeline—prompting the Council chairman to close the proceedings the following day.
Read: SC pushes for reforms to end custodial killings
The Court noted that the statutory framework leaves no ambiguity: Section 7 applies to “all forms of talaq in whatsoever form,” and the law makes no distinction between talaq-e-biddat, talaq-e-ahsan, or divorce exercised through delegated authority.
Citing earlier precedents, the bench reaffirmed that “no form of talaq is effective until the expiry of ninety days from the day on which written notice is delivered to the Chairman,” adding that the effect of Section 7 is “mandatory,” allowing revocation during the reconciliation window.
Central to the case was the delegation clause in the couple’s marriage contract. The bench recorded that there was “no dispute that petitioner delegated this right without placing any restriction or condition on it and in fact specifically stated that it was being delegated ‘unconditionally’.” As a result, the Court held that the respondent wife “stood in the shoes of the husband” and therefore held the same authority to withdraw the notice before the statutory period expired.
The petitioner attempted to argue that custody proceedings in New York reflected mala fide intent. The Court rejected the claim, noting that foreign litigation had no bearing on the legality of the revocation under Pakistani law. It endorsed the High Court’s approach, emphasising that the only decisive question was whether the withdrawal occurred within ninety days.
Also Read: Afghan regime poses threat to region, world: DG ISPR
The Supreme Court also upheld a second impugned order dated January 3, 2024, which concerned another notice issued by the petitioner. The bench found that the chairman acted correctly under the governing rules, including S.R.O. 1086(K)/61, which assigns jurisdiction to Pakistan’s diplomatic missions when a party resides abroad.
Addressing the statutory scheme, the Court warned against interpretations that would dilute Section 8, noting that such readings “would defeat the purpose of section 8, which is to provide statutory recognition to the delegation of the right to divorce to a wife and impose on this right the same conditions as on a husband’s right to divorce under section 7.”
Concluding the matter, the bench ruled that the High Court’s judgment carried “no legal infirmity” and dismissed the petition after converting it into an appeal.