1986 PLP 2490 (MLD)
BADAR MUNIR‑‑Petitioner Versus AZMAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2490 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑e‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | BADAR MUNIR‑‑Petitioner Versus AZMAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2490 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2490 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl‑e‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2490 (MLD) (BADAR MUNIR‑‑Petitioner Versus AZMAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for Petitioner.
- Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar for Respondent No.1
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.491‑‑Habeas corpus‑‑Detenu being claimed by two suitors as their legally‑wedded wife and making allegations and counter‑allegations against each other‑‑Detenu, a sui juris, set at liberty, leaving parties to resort to remedies at law. Mst. Naseem Akhtar in person.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar for Respondent No.1 Mst. Naseem Akhtar in person. The alleged detenu Mst. Nasim Akhtar has been produced by the bailiff of this Court. She was recovered from the house of Azmat Ali, respondent No.1, as a result of the raid. She was found in the house with other inmates.
2. Mst. Naseem Akhtar states that she is married 'to petitioner Badar Munir and that she had been taken to the house of respondent No.1 by her uncles after informing her that her parents were sick.
3. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance is being placed on marriage certificate, dated 5‑12‑1985. This marriage allegedly was solemnised in Ward No.5 at Nawab Shah. However, it is worth‑mentioning that against column No.21 of the Nikahnama, it has not been mentioned that the petitioner was previously married. On my asking, the petitioner has stated that he has a previous wife with whom he is living. It is further stated that from the previous wife, the petitioner has four sons and two daughters. The column does not state that the petitioner has taken permission from the previous wife or arbitration council for the purpose of second marriage.
4. On behalf of respondent No.1, it is being claimed that though no Nikahnama is with him, but there was a suit instituted for performance of conjugal rights which was decreed and there was also a suit filed for dissolution of marriage which was dismissed in default. The Suit for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted at Lodhran and decreed on 25‑12‑1985 whereas the suit for dissolution of marriage was filed at Okara which, as already noticed, was dismissed for default.
5. In view of the wishes and statement of Mst. Naseem Akhtar who is sui juris, she is set at liberty. In so far as allegations and counter allegations of the parties are concerned, let them resort to remedies at law.
6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. S. G. D. Detenu set at liberty.