P L D 1996 Lahore 339 (PLP)
Mst. ZUBAIDA BIBI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus INCHARGE, DAR‑UL‑AMAAN, LAHORE ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1996 Lahore 339 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Miss Tallat Yaqub, J |
| Parties | Mst. ZUBAIDA BIBI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus INCHARGE, DAR‑UL‑AMAAN, LAHORE ‑‑‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1996 Lahore 339 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1996 Lahore 339 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Miss Tallat Yaqub, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1996 Lahore 339 (PLP) (Mst. ZUBAIDA BIBI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus INCHARGE, DAR‑UL‑AMAAN, LAHORE ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Awan Muhammad Hanif Khan for Petitioner. Mirza Rashid Ahmad Raza for Respondent. ‑
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ S. 491 ‑‑‑ Habeas corpus petition ‑‑‑ Detenue (sui juris) lodged in Dar‑ul‑Aman desired to accompany her paramour present outside the Court instead of going with her parents ‑‑‑ Taking into account the social environments prevailing in a Muslim community a young unmarried girl could not be allowed to live with a stranger, although she being sui juris could go wherever she liked ‑‑‑ Detenue was consequently, directed to live with her mother who was present in Court. Fateh Sher v. Sarang PLD 1971 Lah. 128 and Shaukat Ali v. Altaf Hussain Qureshi and another 1972 SCMR 398 ref.
Judgment & Decree
This habeas corpus petition was filed by one Mst. Zubaida Bibi who claimed to be the mother of Mst. Mehraj Bibi who was lodged in Dar‑ul‑Aman on 4‑10‑1995 by the Chief Reporter of Daily Sadaqat, Lahore.
2. Notice to the Incharge Dar‑ul‑Aman was issued to produce Mst. Mehraj Bibi who is present in Court. She states that she does not want to go with her parents and instead wants to accompany her paramour present outside the Court. The question which arises is as to whether a sui juris girl can be allowed to accompany her paramour in preference to her parents. Petition accepted.
3. This question. for the first time arose in Fateh Sher v. Sarang PLD 1971 Lah. 128 Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Cheema as he then was dismissed the petition of the paramour by observing as, follows:‑‑ "I am not, therefore, inclined to allow this petition in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction which would virtually amount* to give this course blessings to the immoral activities. of two unscrupulous persons who, in. Islam are liable to extreme penalty," In Shaukat Ali v. Altaf Hussain Qureshi and another 1972 Supreme Court Monthly Review 398, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Courts do not function in vacuum and must take due note of the social and moral environments prevailing in the community for which the law is to be administered. 4. 1 am of the considered view that the detenue cannot be allowed to go and live with her paramour. We have to take into account the social environment prevailing in a Muslim community. A young unmarried girl cannot be allowed to live with a person who is completely stranger to her. Our society is definitely not a society where young girls are allowed to move freely with their paramours. Although Mst. Mehraj Bibi is sui juris and can go wherever she likes but in a case of the present nature I do not think proper that her custody should be given to her paramour instead of her parents. 1, therefore, direct the petitioner to live with her mother who is present in Court. With this observation, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is directed Olive with her mother. N.H.Q./Z‑178/L