1991 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. MUSARRAT PARVEEN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. MUSARRAT PARVEEN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. MUSARRAT PARVEEN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Athar Rehman Khan for Petitioner
- Anon Hussain for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491
Child was in custody of father when temporary handed over to mother with a purpose of reconciliation
Child was produced in Court in custody of accused paramour of the mother
Father of child had produced a photo copy of application moved by the said paramour for American visa showing the. petitioner to be his wife and detenu child as his daughter
Apprehension of father/respondent that the child would be removed out of Pakistan was not baseless
Custody of child with father could not be said to be unlawful
No direction in the nature of habeas corpus was issued
Custody of child was left with the father and mother of child was left to seek her remedy before the Guardian Judge in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 491
Child was in custody of father when temporary handed over to mother with a purpose of reconciliation
Child was produced in Court in custody of accused paramour of the mother
Father of child had produced a photo copy of application moved by the said paramour for American visa showing the. petitioner to be his wife and detenu child as his daughter
Apprehension of father/respondent that the child would be removed out of Pakistan was not baseless
Custody of child with father could not be said to be unlawful
No direction in the nature of habeas corpus was issued
Custody of child was left with the father and mother of child was left to seek her remedy before the Guardian Judge in circumstances. Athar Rehman Khan for Petitioner Anon Hussain for Respondent When the case was called for hearing, Mst. Musarrat Parveen petitioner entered appearance alongwith one Muhammad Jamil who was carrying Mst. Naurin Akhtar (child) the alleged detenu. Muhammad Akram respondent/father of the child, stated that he had divorced his wife, the petitioner, before the institution of this petition as she was having illicit relations with Muhammad Jamil, present in the Court. He has shown me the letters written by Mst. Musarat Parveen petitioner/wife in proof of her love affairs with Jamil. He has also shown me the photostat copy of an application moved by Muhammad Jamil for U.S.A. visa in which he has shown Mst. Musarrat Parveen petitioner as his wife and Mst. Naurin Akhtar, the detenu child as his daughter.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances the apprehension of respondent/father that the child will be removed from Pakistan does not seem to be baseless. The child was with her father/petitioner at the time of filing of this application. On 22-10-1990 the custody of the child was given to the petitioner/mother temporarily for the purposes of reconciliation, which by now has failed. Mst. Musarrat Parveen, the petitioner has produced the child in the Court as directed in order, dated 22-10-1990. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I do not desire to give any direction in the nature of habeas corpus. The respondent being the father of the child, it cannot be said that the custody of the child with him was unlawful or illegal, so the child will remain with him. The petitioner may approach the learned Guardian Judge for the custody of child, if so advised. S.A./M-2705/L Order accordingly.