Women in a conservative society have always been victims of violence, but with some amendments to the family laws, the situation is likely to improve
PAWLA’s legal aid service for the needy and distressed women started in the mid-eighties. It has grown over the years — the number of aggrieved women approaching the centre has doubled every year. The PAWLA team has a heavy workload. In the year 2002, at least 1,000 new clients, women in distress, are estimated to have approached the PAWLA’s legal aid centres for the consultation, conciliation and redress through courts. Nearly 70 per cent of these women complain of domestic violence.
PAWLA with practical experience soon realised that the legal aid must be combined with the awareness of legal procedures and law reforms. Thus PAWLA made several representations to the government for the reforms, especially in the family laws. In practical terms, we found that the Family Law Courts Act 1964, was defective and family courts had limited powers, making them ineffective.
Various governments came and went, but little heed was paid to the crying need for the law reforms. Laws and the justice system were ignored, which resulted in deterioration of social conditions and suffering of people. Recently on March 5, 2002, on the International Women’s Day, PAWLA held a huge conference to petition for the law reforms with the regime of President Gen Pervez Musharraf.
When the all-male Pakistan Law Commission announced its recommendations for amendments to the Family Law Courts Act 1964, most of which also included PAWLA’s demands, PAWLA immediately called an in-house meeting with its law officers to discuss these amendments. Several objections were raised and pursued with the commission and the government. PAWLA’s voice was heard and some of the objections were accepted.
On Oct 1, 2002, President Musharraf, under the military regime, issued an ordinance for the amendments to the Family Law Courts Act 1964. This was a bold and welcome step for making it possible to give relief to the women through law courts.
Domestic violence: Time and again, PAWLA has recommended that the family courts be empowered to deal with the domestic violence. In our experience, women suffering from domestic violence are mentally unprepared to go to the indifferent and unresponsive police with complains and find it a great hardship to go to the magistrates’ courts. By the amendments to the Family Law Courts Act 1964, family court judges have been given powers of the first class judicial magistrate to try and to punish offences between spouses. This will go a long way in facilitating relief to wives, and will help reduce domestic violence, as it should deter husbands from hurting or confining the wives.
The sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) brought within the jurisdiction of family courts include several crimes of hurt and wrongful restraint, assault, criminal force. The family courts can also try complains of words or any act intended to insult the modesty of the women by the husbands. This latter condition should have been applicable against any person. Though the above offences are already present in the PPC, the innovation is that the family courts can also convict and award punishments for these offences between the spouses.
Enhancement of powers of family courts: Formerly the family courts had no power to make any kind of interim order and grant injunctions in cases of maintenance for the women and children, pending the proceedings. Poor women and children were left begging on the streets. Under the present amendments, it has been provided that in a suit for maintenance the family court may pass interim orders for the maintenance, where payment shall be made by the 14th of each month, failing which the court may strike off defence of the defendant and decree the suit. This will be particularly helpful to the poor women and children in distress.
Besides, it had become a practice for erring husbands to dispose off their property and assets during the pendency of suits for maintenance, dower and recovery of dowry. In this condition, when a suit was decreed the husband had no assets, and it became difficult to execute the decree. PAWLA had done a study on the enforcement of decrees, which pointed out this glaring defect in the Family Law Courts Act. Under the amendments, the family courts may pass an interim order to preserve and protect any property in dispute in a suit and any other property of the party to the suit, the preservation of which is considered necessary for the satisfaction of the decree, if and when passed. This power if utilised properly can help in recovery of decreed dues of women and children.
Dissolution of marriage: One of the main grounds for the dissolution of marriages presently being used in courts is Khula. These cases also had to undergo the same lengthy procedures, though Khula is a recognized right of the wife. Under the present amendments, it has been provided that in a suit for the dissolution of marriage if reconciliation fails, the court shall pass decree for dissolution of marriage forthwith and shall also restore to the husband the Haq Mehar (dower) received by the wife at the time of marriage.
This will be a great help for women seeking Khula, as it will eliminate delay and distress. It has limited the benefits, which the wife has to give up in consideration of Khula to the dower. The Pakistan Law Commission had initially indicated a much wider scope for benefits to be returned. PAWLA strongly objected and has been instrumental to limiting the definition. The amendments should have restricted the return of Haq Mehar only, in certain circumstances. A wife having performed her marital obligations for some years, should not be required to return the dower in lieu of Khula.
Combining claims: Another innovation is that in the section for the institution of suits, a proviso has been added that a suit for the dissolution of marriage may contain all claims of dowry, maintenance, dower, personal property and belongings of the wife, custody of children and visitation rights of parents to meet their children.
Formerly, separate cases had to be filed. Now it was possible for the wife seeking divorce to also add these issues. PAWLA had strongly objected to the proposed draft which made it mandatory for a woman seeking dissolution of marriage to compulsorily add all the above claims, which would have meant long delays in the disposal of cases. Now with the word ‘may’, it will be an option of the wife to include or exclude other issues.
There is some confusion, resulting from the permission to include in a suit for the dissolution of marriage, other claims, as the jurisdiction of the courts differs, for example the application for custody of children has to be filed in the court of district judge within whose jurisdiction the children reside, who then assigns it to the relevant court. The case for the dissolution of marriage can be filed within the jurisdiction of a family judge where the wife resides. This needs clarification.
The Family Law Courts Act 1964, was in desperate need of amendments. This long-awaited move even though by ordinance need attention by the public, especially women, lawyers and judges. Proper application will certainly make redress for the women easier. Giving the family law courts the power and function of handling the cases of domestic violence will no doubt deter the husband from battering the wives, which has become a present day calamity for several married women.
Delays: There are amendments for early disposals within six months for family cases and four months for appeals have been specified, and if this is not done, an application may be made to the High Court. And where a court is vacant, the case is to be transferred. There has been an amendment to further provide grounds for contempt of court, power of the court to issue commissions, addition of services by couriers and issuance of notice after passing ex parte decrees and providing for Rs15 as the court fee in family cases as also appeals. Jurisdiction of the court has been extended to include visitation rights for parents of children and recovery of personal property of the wife.
We had been working for these changes in laws, but previous governments ignored to redress the grievances of the women in distress. Each one of us in society must realize the need to continue our struggle for the women rights, as our social conditions are deteriorating fast.
Today, we have a caucus of 60 women in the National Assembly, several in the provincial assemblies and hundreds in the local councils. This is a chance for improving the conditions of life for the suffering women and children. Men must cease to be masters, and there has to be a change in their attitudes to partnership and progress. Women MNAs, MPAs and local councillors have a load of responsibilities. NGOs must share with them in the responsibility by striving for humane, tolerant, peaceful conditions to make progress possible.
Women in a conservative society have always been victims of violence, but with some amendments to the family laws, the situation is likely to improve 
