EDITORIAL: The alleged abduction of a young girl, Dua Zahra, has gripped the public attention for months as her father relentlessly pursued the case, regularly followed by the media, compelling the police to take action for her recovery.
After many twists and turns to the story and reports of her having contracting marriage with her alleged abductee, she had been brought back to Karachi where her father had approached the Sindh High Court (SHC) with a petition for her recovery and return to her family.
He had contended that his daughter who had gone missing from her Karachi home in April and later surfaced in Punjab, was a minor less than 14 years of age, and that under the Sindh Child Marriage Restraint Act, 2013, it was illegal to marry a minor. However, in her statement before the court, Zahra said she was not kidnapped but had contracted nikah with Zaheer Ahmad of her own free will, also claiming that she was 18-year-old and hence an adult within her legal rights to marry the person of her choice.
After hearing arguments from both sides, a two-member SHC bench disposed of the case on Wednesday, ruling that the petition had served its purpose as it was only to the extent of the whereabouts of the allegedly abducted minor who has already been produced, and deposed she was not abducted but had entered into marriage contract of her own volition.
Hence, pursuant to her statement on oath she was free to decide “with whom she intends to reside and go along with.” It is a rather confusing verdict as some lose ends of the case are yet to be tied. As per the SHC order, the investigating officer (IO) is to file his report before the trial court along with age certificate and statement of the girl, where after the trial court seized with the matter shall proceed in accordance with law, which prohibits marriages of minors.
It is worth noting that during the proceedings in the SHC, the IO had submitted his report along with the age certificate issued by the office of police surgeon which stated that in the opinion of doctors at the Civil Hospital and report of its department of radiology the bone age of the girl was between 16 and 17 years. That means the girl is not an adult yet. Reason suggests that pending the trial court’s proceedings she should have been sent to a women’s shelter home rather than letting her decide whether she wanted to go with her ‘husband’ or her parents.
Whichever way this case concludes, it is neither the first instance of a young girl running away with a man nor the last one. Such things happened in the past as well but they seem to have become more common now, apparently, because of easy connectivity through the internet and cell phones. Parental monitoring and control over cell phone access, perhaps, can help save children from making controversial or bad decisions.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.