1995 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. WAZIRAN MAI — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HASHIM and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. WAZIRAN MAI — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HASHIM and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 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 1995 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: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. WAZIRAN MAI — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HASHIM and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kanwar Muhammad Younas for Petitioner.
- Hameed Azhar Malik for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491
Alleged detenu stated in the Court that she was living a happy married life with her husband against whom she had no grievance and hated even the idea to desert him and that the allegation of her being in illegal confinement was absolutely baseless
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 491
Alleged detenu stated in the Court that she was living a happy married life with her husband against whom she had no grievance and hated even the idea to desert him and that the allegation of her being in illegal confinement was absolutely baseless
Petition was dismissed in view of the said statement. Kanwar Muhammad Younas for Petitioner. Hameed Azhar Malik for Respondents. This application has been filed by the petitioner, Mst. Waziran Mai, for the recovery and production of Mst. Haseena Mai. On 15-2-1995, respondent No.l was asked to produce Mst. Haseena Mai. He is present alongwith Mst. Haseena Mai. Her husband, Mulazim Hussain, is also present alongwith minor child born from this wedlock. Mst. Haseena Mai states that she is living a happy marital life with her husband Mulazim Hussain and, therefore, the allegation that she is in the illegal confinement is absolutely baseless. She further states that she hates the idea to desert her husband against whom she has no grievance. ' In view of the above statement, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is treading on the thin legal advice. It is very sad that in our society, some parents unnecessarily interfere in the matrimonial affairs of the spouses for' some petty interests, usually resulting in their separation. They gloss over the fact that their interference often proves to be perilous to the spouses as well as l to themselves. This petition is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./W-65/L Petition dismissed.