(i) Under section 7(3) of the MFLO, a Talaq does not become legally effective until the expiry of 90 days from the date on which notice under section 7(1) is received by the Chairman of the Union Council, unless it is revoked earlier. Section 7(3) precludes the Talaq from taking effect for a specified period, during which the parties continue to be the husband and wife in law.(ii) During this 90-day period, the husband retains the right to revoke the Talaq either expressly or by any unequivocal conduct indicating such intent. Intimation to the Chairman is not a statutory precondition for revocation.(iii) Where the Talaq is revoked within the aforementionedperiod, the marriage continues to subsist in law, regardless of the form in which the divorce was originally pronounced (including Talaq-ul-bidaat).(iv) Failure to send notice to the Chairman may attract penal consequences under section 7(2), but does not by itself amount to revocation of Talaq. It renders the pronouncement ineffective, not invalid, in law.(v) The legal effect of divorce under Islamic law without compliance with section 7 has limited recognition only in prosecutions for Zina, where the Shariat Appellate Bench has held that such divorces, though unnotified, may still be valid under Shariah. This exception does not apply to the offence of rape under section 376 PPC(vi) The Chairman of the Union Council is required, upon receiving notice under section 7(1), to constitute an Arbitration Council and facilitate reconciliation between the parties. However, failure of either party to appear or of the Council to conduct proceedings does not prevent the operation of section 7(3). The Chairman is not empowered to adjudicate on the validity or effect of Talaq, and the issuance or non-issuance of a certificate has no legal bearing on its effectiveness.(vii) A divorce by Mubara’at, once duly executed and communicated to the Chairman, is irrevocable, and the husband has no authority to withdraw from it unilaterally. The requirement of notice under section 7(1) of the MFLO applies mutatis mutandis. However, it only ensures procedural regularity and does not affect the validity or finality of the dissolution.Law distinguishes between sin, crime, and offence. A “sin” is a moral or religious transgression, an act considered wrong according to divine command or ethical principles, judged by one’s faith or conscience. Its consequences are spiritual or moral, such as guilt or divine punishment. In contrast, under the statutory framework of Pakistan, a “crime” is an act or omission that is made punishable by law. It is a public wrong that affects society at large, and the offender may be punished by death, imprisonment, fine or other legal penalties. Courts established under the Constitution adjudicate only statutory offences and do not concern themselves with moral or religious conduct. The term “offence” is a technical expression that refers to any act (or omission) that violates the law. It encompasses both regulatory violations, such as traffic infractions, and serious penal acts like murder. “Offence” is a broader concept than “crime”, the latter being generally reserved for serious offences involving public wrongs. Thus, every crime is an offence, but not every offence amounts to a crime in this sense. Under Shariah, however, a crime is an act prohibited by divine injunction and punishable with Hadd or Ta’zir penalties. In the present case, the marital bond between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 existed in law at the time of the alleged occurrence. The Petitioner’s conduct may be considered immoral or inappropriate under religious or social norms, but he cannot be prosecuted under section 376 PPC because, on the facts pleaded in the FIR, the essential ingredients of the offence are not disclosed. Writ Petition No. 39/2025 Jameel Ahmad Vs. The State and othersDate of hearing:14.11.20252025LHC7342