CLC 2002

2002 PLP 1378 (CLC)

IMTIAZ ALI ‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. NASEEBAN‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Guardian Wards Act Appeal No.S‑1, Miscellaneous Application Nos.7, 8 and 9 of 2002, decided on 23rd January, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 1378 (CLC)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J
Parties IMTIAZ ALI ‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. NASEEBAN‑‑‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1378 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1378 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1378 (CLC) (IMTIAZ ALI ‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. NASEEBAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Muhammad Saleem G.N. Jesser for Appellant.

Headnotes / Summary

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 14(b)‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Appeal against judgment of Family Court lies before District Court except in case where the Family Court is presided over by a District Judge or Additional District Judge‑‑‑Appeal preferred before High Court against judgment of Family Judge was not maintainable in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 13‑11‑2001 passed by the learned Family Judge, Mehar whereby he has allowed Guardian Application No.11 of 2001 filed by respondent. A bare reading of section 14(b) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964 clearly goes to show that an appeal against the judgment of a Family Court, except in the case where it is presided over by a District Judge or an Additional District Judge would lie before the District Court. In view of this position appeal preferred before this Court is not maintainable and accordingly it is dismissed. It will be open for the appellant to file his appeal in accordance with law before the District Court, Dadu. Q.M.H./M.A.K./I‑51/K Appeal dismissed.