P L D 1952 Dacca 51 (PLP)
ADAM ALI KHALIFA and others‑Petitioners Versus CROWN‑Opposite‑Party
| Citation | P L D 1952 Dacca 51 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ellis and Ibrahim, JJ |
| Parties | ADAM ALI KHALIFA and others‑Petitioners Versus CROWN‑Opposite‑Party |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1952 Dacca 51 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1952 Dacca 51 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ellis and Ibrahim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1952 Dacca 51 (PLP) (ADAM ALI KHALIFA and others‑Petitioners Versus CROWN‑Opposite‑Party). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- K. A. Salam Khan, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 366‑Guardian for marriage of Muhammadan minor girl kidnapping minor from custody of guardian of person‑Whether not an offence‑Plea that minor's will does not matter no defence
"Her will" means the will of the girl, not that of her guardian. The fact that the accused was at the relevant time minor girl's guardian for marriage is no defence to a charge under section 366 Pakistan P. C. Though a paternal cousin according to Muhammadan Law, has right to contract the marriage, he has no right to kidnap the minor girl from the custody of her guardian of person or to compel her to ratify and accept a marriage contracted by him. If the girl is kidnapped with the intention of compelling her to go through a form of marriage whether valid or not, the case would come within the mischief of the section. The contention that as a minor has no authority to con tract her marriage, the guardians having the authority to contract it, the minor's " will" does not matter, and what matters in a case under section 366 is the " will " of the guardian is without substance. Taher Khan v. Emperor, I L R 45 Cal. 641 ; Fulchand Tepriwalla
4. Emperor, 36 C W N 49 ; Khalil‑ur‑Rahman v. King Emperor, I L R 11 Rang. 213 F. B., rel. Khem s v. Emperor, 27 Cr. L. J. 851 ; Sultan v. Emperor, 31 Cr. L J ; Emperor v. Safdar Reza, I L R 49 Cal. 905, ref. Salahuddin Ahmed for Deputy Legal Remembrancer, for Crown.
Judgment & Decree
ELLIS, J.
‑I agree. A.H. Conviction upheld