2002 PLP 665 (MLD)
SHAUKAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSSRAT SULTANA and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 665 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Nasira Iqbal, J |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSSRAT SULTANA and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 665 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 665 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mrs. Nasira Iqbal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 665 (MLD) (SHAUKAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSSRAT SULTANA and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahal for Petitioner.
- Syed Waseem Haider for Respondent No. 1
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Custody of minor son‑‑‑Guardian Judge handed over custody of minor son A aged 6 years to his mother, who had already got custody of minor son R aged 5 years‑‑‑Decisions of Guardian Judge was affirmed in appeal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Father had re‑married and had two daughters from second wife, whereas mother of minors had not re‑married‑‑‑Minor son R. was being looked after properly wile living with real mother and had answered Court's questions intelligently‑‑‑Mother of minors was living in Sargodha, where her father being civil servant was posted, whereas minor A was living with paternal grandmother in the village‑‑‑Both the minors were very close to each other, and it would be in their interest and welfare that they should be brought up together‑‑‑Affection and devotion of real mother for the minors could not be matched by anyone else‑‑‑Mother of minors could give them constant attention, who had committed to bring up the children‑‑‑No infirmity and impropriety was found in orders of Courts below, which could not be interfered in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed with observations that father might meet both the minors on alternate Saturday in the Court of Guardian Judge, Sargodha, where father was presently posted.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahal for Petitioner. Syed Waseem Haider for Respondent No. 1 The petitioner has assailed the order of respondent No.2. Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby he had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of respondent No.3, who had awarded the custody of minor Aamir Suhail to respondent No. 1, Mussarat Sultana, who is real mother of the minor and he had already got the custody of Rustam Ali, younger son of the parties. Both the parties are present in the Court today alongwith minors. The minor, Aamir Suhail is about 6 years of age and minor Rustam Ali is 5 years of age. The petitioner had admittedly re‑married and the custody of the minors, Aamir Suhail is with the paternal grandmother, who lives in the same house. Minor Aamir Suhail is studying in Class‑II in M.C. Primary School, Sillanwali while Rustam Ali is studying in Class‑I in Ghazali Public School, Sargodha.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has only one son with him and issues from his second wife are two daughters and the minor is properly looked after by his paternal and mother, therefore, there is no reason to shift the custody of the minor to mother. It is also argued that the petitioner has better means then the mother.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that the petitioner has entered into second marriage and in such circumstances, respondent No. 1 is entitled to custody of the minor and her younger son is going to school and minor Aamir Suhail can go to same school with his brother and minor Aamir Suhail can be properly looked after by his mother also.
4. The heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. Since the petitioner has already re‑married second time and respondent No. 1 has not re‑married. Mirror, Rustam Ali, who is living with her, has been properly looked after and he has answered the questions of the Court intelligently. Further, she is real mother of the minors, her affection and devotion cannot be matched by anyone else. It is also in the interest and welfare of both the minors, who are very close to each other that they should be brought up together. The petitioner is employed in police as constable in Sargodha, where respondent No. 1 is residing while minor, Aamir Suhail is living with his paternal grandmother in Sillanwali, therefore, mother of the minors can give constant attention to the minors she has committed to bring up her children. Therefore, I find no impropriety and infirmity in the orders, of both the Courts below and thus, they cannot be interfered in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is dismissed. Minor, Aamir Suhail, who is present in the Court is given to the custody of mother. However, both the minors are entitled to meet their father, who is currently posted in Sargodha. The petitioner may meet both the minors on alternate Saturday in the Court of learned Guardian Judge, Sargodha. If this arrangement causes any inconvenience to the parties, they may apply to the Court of learned Guardian Judge, who shall fix the visitation schedule. S.A.K./S‑343/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.