Inherited from the ecclesiastical courts of the Church of England, colonial-era laws continue to govern Christian matrimonial issues. One particular legislation, Christian Divorce Act, 1869, caused an uproar at the Lahore High Court on Friday when appeals to upgrade the clauses in violation of fundamental human rights were heavily criticised by none other than the federal human
rights minister.
Keeping in view the abusive nature of the law, which has facilitated many abusive relationships to thrive in the last three decades, it is quite surprising that many members of the community are still against its modification to reflect the changing times. In addition, couples willing to peacefully part ways find it difficult — almost impossible — to obtain a divorce unless they file their case on the grounds of adultery, conversion or second marriage. A clear violation of not only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1, 16 and 23, as well as the country’s constitution (Article 14 and 25), which clearly emphasise on the dignity and equality of both men and women “as to marriage, during marriage and (even) at its dissolution”, the Divorce Act needs an immediate and thorough reformation. Those in opposition to the amendment to Section 10 of the Act might have been right in standing up to defend their right to practice their belief. However, what they had overlooked in their obsession to uphold the religious canon at the expense of civil freedoms, were the incessantly insulted Christian women who have to either suffer from the charges of adultery or prostitution or convert to Islam, when confronted by abusive marriages and domestic violence. Had the legislation been considerate of both biblical ideals to sustain the marriage as a lifelong union “for better or for worse” as well as the basic human freedoms, the appellants would have held no ground to challenge it.
Nevertheless, the unfortunate yet significant presence of Christian women who have renounced their religion in order to secure a quick refuge from married spouses certainly narrates a different tale. The fact that Christian-majority countries like the UK and Ireland have long replaced the misogynistic legislation with a more liberal interpretation of the Matrimonial Causes Act and Family Law (Divorce) Act respectively gives further support to those voices calling for similar liberties to be enjoyed by Christians in Pakistan. Fighting for the sustenance of a legal code that does not bestow civil powers upon a civil contract is more a matter of patriarchy than religion.
LHC could not have been more correct in its observation that the “court was not supposed to interpret the Bible or the Old Testament but to implement the Constitution, which says “the right to practise religion is available to every citizen based on his conscience”. Thus, an apt application of such objectivity would be to come up with a ruling that caters to the welfare of the greater masses, not a couple ‘holier than thou ‘ voices. Even if they have forgotten the military dictator who had the audacity to tweak personal laws of a significant community on a whim, we better not. *