Pakistan court rules Christian Divorce Act is illegal and unconstitutional; permits English principles to be used in Christian marriage issues

CB Condez Friday, May 27, 2016

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has ruled a section in the Christian Divorce Act of 1869 as illegal and unconstitutional. The section allows a Christian couple to have their marriage annulled based on an accusation by the husband that the wife has committed adultery.

A Pakistani Christian woman attends a mass on Christmas day in Lahore December 25, 2012. | Reuters/Mohsin Raza

According to The Express Tribune, the issue was raised in a petition filed by Amin Masih who wanted to divorce his wife, but he could not do so unless he falsely accuses her of adultery. His legal counsel said that the law could destroy a Christian woman's dignity.

Advocate Hina Jilani likewise said that both Christian men and women are subject to unpleasant situations because of the section. Moreover, Christian women who wish to seek a divorce have no choice but to convert to Islam.

The section, called the Federal Law Revision and Declaration Ordinance of 1981, was inserted in the CDA Act and enacted by former president General Ziaul Haq.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah declared it as a violation of the constitution. In addition, the magistrate restored Section 7 -- removed from law through the same 1981 federal law revision -- which allows the principles used by Engish courts to be applied when dealing with Christian family and marriage disputes.

England has the Matrimonial Clauses Act of 1973, which lets Christian marriages be annulled on the basis of a partner's unreasonable behavior, separation for two years in an agreed divorce or separation for five years in a contested divorce, desertion by a spouse for up to two years, as well as a partner engaging in an adulterous relationship.

Assistant Advocate General Anwar Hussain reportedly said that the provincial government tried to have the law amended but no consensus could be arrived at, thus the delay in making changes. Justice Shah said that lawmakers should have given more weight to the citizens' basic rights rather than on the varying opinions regarding the issue.