P L D 2001 Lahore 347 (PLP)
Mst. SHAZIA SHARIF — Petitioner Versus ZEESHAN AHMED DODHY and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2001 Lahore 347 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SHAZIA SHARIF — Petitioner Versus ZEESHAN AHMED DODHY and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2001 Lahore 347 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2001 Lahore 347 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2001 Lahore 347 (PLP) (Mst. SHAZIA SHARIF — Petitioner Versus ZEESHAN AHMED DODHY and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mehdi Khan Chohan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Zaheer for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491
Parties had separated on 1-9-1999 after the petitioner (wife) was divorced by the respondent (husband) and thereafter, even according to the petitioner, due to some mutual agreement or arrangement between them the minor had been handed over to the respondent
Evidence in circumstances was necessary to determine the welfare of the minor which could better be recorded by the Guardian Court
Section 491, Cr.P.C. was not meant to pre-empt the jurisdiction of Guardian Court if, however, the child had been forcibly taken away or retained by the father or any one else which could be hazardous to the minor then the custody would be handed over to the mother who had the first right to custody
Child was with the father since 1-9-1999 and the case being not of emergency a was not appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction under 5.491, Cr.P.C.
Petition was dismissed accordingly
Judgment & Decree
S. 491
Parties had separated on 1-9-1999 after the petitioner (wife) was divorced by the respondent (husband) and thereafter, even according to the petitioner, due to some mutual agreement or arrangement between them the minor had been handed over to the respondent
Evidence in circumstances was necessary to determine the welfare of the minor which could better be recorded by the Guardian Court
Section 491, Cr.P.C. was not meant to pre-empt the jurisdiction of Guardian Court if, however, the child had been forcibly taken away or retained by the father or any one else which could be hazardous to the minor then the custody would be handed over to the mother who had the first right to custody
Child was with the father since 1-9-1999 and the case being not of emergency a was not appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction under 5.491, Cr.P.C.
Petition was dismissed accordingly Mehdi Khan Chohan for Petitioner. Muhammad Zaheer for Respondents. Ordinarily custody of any minor of tender age is handed over to the mother by invoking the jurisdiction under section 491, Cr.P. C. However, to this case the fact, are different. Parties got separated on 1-9-1999 after the petitioner was divorced by the respondent and thereafter, even according to the petitioner there was some mutual agreement or arrangement in between the parties, as a result of which the minor was handed over to the respondent It is true that any arrangement or agreement in-between the spouses or the parties does not to any manner bind the minor and his custody is to be decided by determining his or her welfare. However, in order to determine the welfare of the children collection of evidence is necessary and same can better be done by the Guardian Court. Even otherwise, section 491, Cr.P.C. is not meant to pre-empt the jurisdiction of Guardian Court. If in case it is noted that child has been forcibly taken away or retained by the father or any one else and same may be hazardous to the minor then the mother who has a first right of custody is handed over the custody. In the instant case the facts being different that child is with the father since 1-9-1999, I do not think it would be appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction under section 491, Cr.P.C. because obviously the case is not of emergency. The petitioner may move the Guardian Court who will decide the same by keeping to view the welfare of the minor. For interim relief as well, section 12 of Guardian and Wards Act can be pressed into service.
2. Disposed of with above observations. N.H.Q./S-205/L Petition dismissed.