1994 P Cr (PLP)

DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA and another

Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous No.503/H of 1994, decided on 19th June, 1994.

S. 491

Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S.25

Custody of minor

After lapse of about five years from the dismissal of earlier habeas corpus petition by High Court, similar petition on the same facts with no change in them could not be entertained for decision on merits, particularly when the petitioner (father of the minor girl) had suppressed the material fact in his habeas corpus petition of the dismissal on merits of his petition instituted earlier under S.25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for recovery of the minor girl from her mother

High Court found it inexpedient to interfere to disturb the settled custody of the minor girl

Petition was dismissed in limine accordingly. Amanat Ali Bokhari for Petitioner. This is a petition in the nature of habeas corpus by a father for regaining the actual custody of his minor daughter born on 11-9-1985, from her mother. Petitioner was married to Mst. Safia Bibi respondent No.2 in the petition. A daughter was born to them from this marriage. Her name was Mst. Amina Bibi. Petitioner divorced respondent No.2 on 13-3-1986. Thereupon, respondent No.2 remarried Muhammad Siddique on 7-3-1988. The minor girl was ever since the date of divorce resided with her mother-respondent No-2. Earlier also, petitioner instituted a petition Criminal Miscellaneous No.48/H of 1989 against respondent No.2 and her father Allah Ditta for recovery of the custody of the minor girl when she was about four years of age. On 8-2-1989, the habeas corpus petition was dismissed by my brother Riaz Ahmad, J. with the observation that if advised petitioner could invoke the jurisdiction of the Guardian Judge for redress of his grievance. Petitioner instituted a petition under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for recovery of the minor girl from her mother. It was stated to have been dismissed by the Guardian Judge on merits on 29-6-1992. His decision was not challenged further. After lapse of about two years' time, a petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. was filed in this Court. Strangely, the petitioner did not disclose in the habeas corpus petition that he had also instituted a petition under section 25 of the Guardians and - Wards Act and the same was dismissed on merits by the Guardian Judge. Silence on it was broken at the hearing when the true facts were surfaced. Petitioner was clearly guilty of material suppression of fact in his habeas corpus petition. He was bound to narrate and disclose all the important facts of his case. F,iling of the petition under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act was certainly not an unimportant event. Be that as it may, after lapse of about five years from the dismissal of earlier habeas corpus petition by the High Court, similar petition on the same facts with no change in them could not be entertained for decision on merits. More particularly, when the petition suffered from material suppression of important fact. In this view, it was inexpedient to interfere for disturbing the settled custody of the minor girl. If advised, recourse to Guardian Court could be had by the petitioner. With these observations, this petition is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./M-1687/L Petition dismissed.