1977 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAINAB BIBI‑Respondent
| Citation | 1977 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Jabbar Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQ‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAINAB BIBI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898}‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898}‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Jabbar Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQ‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAINAB BIBI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C. R. Aslam for Petitioner.
- Nazir Ahmad Shami for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th February 1977.
Headnotes / Summary
‑ S. 488‑Maintenance‑Allowance as maintenance for minor children fixed about, 13 years ago and revision petition impugning validity of such order coming up before High Court after beneficiary minor children already grown out of age of minority‑Point left for considera tion, held, only of academic interest, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
On an application filed by Asst. Zainab Bibi (daughter) and Mohammad Yasin (son), both minors, under section 488, Cr. P. C. through their mother Mst. Hamidan, Khan Muhammad Zaman Khan, Magistrate First Class, Kasur, vide his judgment dated 11‑5‑1964, directed Muhammad Ishaq petitioner to pay Re. 30 per month from date of application i.e. 2.2‑11‑1963, as maintenance to the minor children. It was further directed that the amount of maintenance will be increased to Rs. 60 per month after four years. Aggrieved against this order Muhammad Ishaq petitioner filed a revision petition before Captain Mohammad Daud Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who vide his judgment dated 3‑8-1965, dismissed his revision petition and upheld the order of the trial Magistrate.
2. Hence, this revision petition, which was admitted by the order of this Court dated 7‑2‑1966, to consider as to whether it was proper that a person who owned 11 to 18 acres of land world be able to pay the mainte nance at the enhanced rate after a period of four years. This case was taken up by me on 17‑2‑1977 when I found that both the learned counsel were absent and I called upon them to show cause why action should not be taken against them in accordance with law for their failure to appear in this Court while their names were listed in the cause list of that day. Both the learned counsel are present and have submitted that it was due to inadvertent mistake of their clerks that the fixation of this case in the cause list was not brought to their notice, therefore, they could not appear otherwise they would have attended the Court. I accept the explana tion submitted by both the counsel and discharge them of the notice so issued against them.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel in respect of the point on which this case was admitted and both have stated in unison that the minor children have now grown out of the age of minority and thus this point has remained on the record as a point of academic interest. The revision petition is therefore not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.