Assets, liabilities of spouse PP-126 Jhang: high court upholds RO’s decision

LAHORE: The High Court held that a person is not legally supposed to know about the assets/ liabilities of his spouse and upheld the decision of a returning officer accepting the nomination papers of a candidate Muhammad Yaqoob contesting the Punjab Assembly election from PP-126 Jhang.

The court observed, in this case, a spouse is an independent person with all fundamental rights granted under the Constitution

There is no law under which the wife is obliged to disclose all her assets and liabilities to the husband and similarly, there is no enactment under which the husband can compel the wife to inform him about all her assets and liabilities, the court added.

The court further observed that even if the assets were originally acquired by the wife through her husband, she is not obliged under the law to inform him before further transferring those assets.

The court held that the omission on part of the respondent to mention shares of his wife does not amount to an incorrect or false statement for the purpose of Section 62(9)(c) of the Elections Act.

The court observed it is not shown that what benefit even remote is likely to be obtained by the respondent by withholding said information in the statement and added the same being a curable omission cannot be the sole ground to reject the nomination papers of the respondent.

The court said indeed under section 62(9)(c) of the Act, the returning officer may reject the nomination papers if he is satisfied that the statement is false or incorrect in any material particular.

However, any omission of assets/liabilities in the statement regarding assets/liabilities of a spouse may not be alike or of the same gravity as of omission in respect of assets and liabilities of the candidate himself or the one acquired by him for his dependent children, the court added.

Therefore, in the case of a statement regarding the assets/liabilities of the wife, the omission may not be fatal unless the same is not bona fide and some undue benefit was achieved or likely to be achieved by a candidate for making such incorrect and false statement, the court concluded.

According to the details, respondent Muhammad Yaqoob had filed nomination papers to contest the Punjab Assembly election from PP-126, and Jhang, and appellants Muhammad Akram and others filed objections on the nomination papers.

The returning officer, however, rejected the objections and accepted the nomination papers of the respondent. The appellants, being aggrieved, filed the Election appeal under Section 63 of the Elections Act, 2017 (Act).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023