LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that a husband who pronounces “Talaq” (divorce) but fails to notify the union council (UC) cannot invoke his own default to defeat a divorce effectiveness certificate obtained by his wife.

Justice Anwaar Hussain also ruled that a family court cannot decline to decide a disputed divorce merely because Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, governs its legal effectiveness.

The judge dismissed a petition filed by Raheel Ahmad challenging a divorce certificate issued on Jan 17, 2026, by the union council concerned in favour of his wife, Tayyaba Haq.

The couple had lived in England, where differences arose between them.

Suggests change in Section 7 regarding wife’s right to intimate a pronounced divorce to competent authority

The respondent (wife) asserted that the petitioner (husband) communicated divorce to her through an email on Aug 5, 2024.

She sued in the family court for maintenance, dower and a declaration of divorce.

The husband, appearing through his father, filed a written statement but later stopped attending and was proceeded against ex parte by the family court.

In April 2025, the family court decreed maintenance and dower but declined to decide the divorce issue for lack of jurisdiction, directing the wife to approach the UC, which then issued the certificate.

The petitioner argued that he had never given notice to the UC chairman as required by Section 7(1) of the ordinance, that he was denied a chance to take part in reconciliation. He also claimed that the pronouncement of divorce was made “jokingly.”

Justice Hussain, however, rejected these arguments.

He observed that the duty to give notice rests squarely on the husband, but nothing in Section 7 bars a wife from bringing an already pronounced divorce to the chairman’s notice.

Otherwise, the judge ruled, a husband’s default would become a “veto” over the process and over his wife’s marital status, turning a statutory obligation into a procedural weapon.

The judge noted that notices had been issued by the UC, one of them received by the petitioner’s father, who had also represented him before the family court.

He described the claim of no opportunity as difficult to reconcile with a record showing opportunity followed by avoidance.

The judge termed the joke plea an afterthought, saying the petitioner’s counsel could not even establish that the parties belonged to Fiqah-i-Jafria, to which the statutory proviso applies.

Section 7 of the Ordinance says, where parties belong to Fiqah-i-Jafria, the pronouncement of Talaq shall be ineffective if it is done jokingly or under anger, intoxication, insanity, duress or coercion of any kind and from any corner whatsoever.

Justice Hussain held that the family court had abdicated its jurisdiction by refusing to decide the disputed factum of divorce, observing that “a woman cannot be left suspended between wife and divorcee.”

Before concluding the judgement, the judge observed that the case exposed a legislative and procedural gap capable of generating avoidable uncertainty in matrimonial status.

The judge invited Parliament to consider amending Section 7 regarding a wife’s right to intimate a pronounced Talaq, already communicated to her, to the competent authority, without relieving the husband of his own obligation.

The judge directed the LHC registrar to forward a copy of the judgement to the federal secretary, law and justice division, and circulate to family courts across Punjab.

Published in Dawn, October 9th, 2026