1986 PLP 1944 (SCMR)
Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1944 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1944 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1944 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1944 (SCMR) (Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.W. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th August, 1981.
- A.W. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 29th October, 1979, in F.A.0. No. 120 of 1978).
Art. 185(3)--Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Ss.17 & 25- Custody of minor children given to father by Guardian Judge--Mother re-marrying a stranger--Petition for leave to appeal by mother dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHUHAN,J.‑‑This case involves the question of the custody of three children viz. (i) Naeem Akhtar, (ii) Muhammad Masoom Ashraf, and (iii) Mst.Shabana Noureen. The learned Guardian Judge vide his order, dated 18‑3‑1978 gave the custody of (ii) and (iii) to their father Muhammad Ashraf (respondent), and dismissed the application qua No.1 as he had become major.
2. The petitioner (mother of the children) filed an appeal being F.A.0. No.1.20 of 1978 which was dismissed by the High Court on 29‑10‑1979.
3. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel. We were told that Naeem Akhtar had attained majority and, therefore, no question regarding his custody in any manner is in issue. However, the case was pressed for the other two minor children. It may be mentioned that mother of the children has married a stranger, therefore, in these circumstances, we do not think that this is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal by this Court. Judgments of the Courts below are supported by sound reasons and the learned counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity therein.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. M . I . Petition dismissed.