1995 PLP 1144 (MLD)
Sheikh ABDUL SALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION GARDEN TOWN, LAHORE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1144 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Fakhrun Nisa Khokhar, J |
| Parties | Sheikh ABDUL SALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION GARDEN TOWN, LAHORE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1144 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1144 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mrs. Fakhrun Nisa Khokhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1144 (MLD) (Sheikh ABDUL SALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION GARDEN TOWN, LAHORE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Mumtaz Ali Shah Hamdani for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th October, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.100‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Restraint order passed by Guardian Judge for not removing minor from the jurisdiction of Court‑‑‑Minor was, however, removed from the jurisdiction of the Guardian Judge, Karachi to Lahore‑‑‑Search warrant issued by District and Sessions Judge, Lahore for execution and production of minor‑‑‑Raid conducted by concerned police official at the place which was mentioned in the search warrant‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Police official had not acted in any manner which was prejudicial to and in violation of law and beyond his jurisdiction‑‑‑Constitutional petition having been filed just to obstruct the processes already issued by Court of competent jurisdiction, same was not competent in law. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Legal process already issued cannot be stopped by resorting to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Legal process already issued cannot be stopped by resorting to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Syed Mumtaz Ali Shah Hamdani for Petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 17th October, 1994. The petitioner has filed the instant petition stating therein that petitioner's brother‑in‑law contracted marriage with respondent No. 2, 16 years ago and out of this wedlock three children, namely, Zaishan, Usman and Baby Medeha were born. The relations of the spouses have become strained and the respondent has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and also an application under section 25‑A of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the minors. The learned Guardians Judge passed a restraint order for not removing the minors from the jurisdiction of the Guardians and Wards Court at Karachi. The minors were removed from the jurisdiction of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge (Mrs. Tahira Mohsin) Karachi, South and the concerned Court issued warrant for search of the minors. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent No. 1 has raided the house of the petitioner and insulted the women‑folk. He has prayed for a restraint order passed by this Court not to harass the petitioner in any illegal manner.
2. The respondent No. 1 is present in person. He has filed the para-wise comments. He has submitted in his para-wise comments since he was possessed of a warrant of search by a Court of competent jurisdiction and there was a direction by the learned District and Sessions Judge. Lahore for execution and production of the minors residing with respondent No. 2 at H/No. 240, Atta Turk Block, New Garden Town, Lahore and House No. 161 Tariq Block, New Garden Town Lahore, so in compliance of the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge the respondent has raided the house of the petitioner and he has not misbehaved with any of the family members of the petitioner.
3. I have heard both the parties and have also seen the warrant under section 100 of Cr.P.C. issued in Guardians and Wards Case No. 210/94 (Mst. Nahid Naz v. Muhammad Bashir Khan) for the production of the minors. The respondent has not acted in any manner which is prejudicial and in violation of law and beyond his jurisdiction. The instant petition has been filed just to obstruct the processes already issued by the Courts of competent jurisdiction, I cannot stop the legal processes. The instant petition has no substance. It is dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./A‑758/L Petition dismissed.