2020 PLP 1256 (YLR)
Mst. IFFAT YAQOOB — Petitioner Versus R.P.O., FAISALABAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1256 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, J |
| Parties | Mst. IFFAT YAQOOB — Petitioner Versus R.P.O., FAISALABAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1256 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1256 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1256 (YLR) (Mst. IFFAT YAQOOB — Petitioner Versus R.P.O., FAISALABAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ms. Saba Saeed for Petitioner.
- Mubeen-ud-Din Qazi for Respondent No.5.
- Ch. Fayyaz Ahmad Basra, Assistant Advocate General. Arif, SI for Respondents.
- 3. Petitioner was divorced by respondent No.5 in the year 2015 when minor Mst. Sana Fatima was just a three months suckling baby. Having been divorced, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of the minor against the said respondent which was decreed in her favour on 23.02.2017 but respondent No.5 avoided the process of law and instead of fulfilling his moral and legal responsibility of providing maintenance to the child, became fugitive from law and consequently warrants of arrest were issued against the said respondent during execution proceedings of the decree. Though the parties are having their different stance with regard to the manner of change of custody of the minor on 21.12.2019 yet there is no denial to the fact that prior to the said date minor Mst. Sana Fatima was not residing with her father, respondent No.5 and that she was not being maintained by him since 2015. The fact being furnished by learned counsel for respondent No.5 to the effect that Ghulam Shabbir, brother of petitioner with the consent of their mother himself handed over the custody of Mst. Sana Fatima to the respondent, even is taken as true, even then they cannot be deemed entitled to do so when mother of the minor, the petitioner is not willing to do so and she is desirous to continue the custody of the minor, her daughter. Respondent No.5, no doubt, has the right to approach the learned court of competent jurisdiction for the custody of minor but not otherwise. In the light of mentioned supra, this petition is allowed and interim custody of Mst. Sana Fatima, the minor is handed over to the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491
Scope
Petitioner (divorcee mother), sought recovery of her minor daughter
Parties though were having different stance with regard to the manner of change of custody of minor yet there was no denial to the fact that one month prior to the date of filing petition under S.491, Cr.P.C., minor had not been residing with her father and she was not being maintained by him for the last four years
Contention of respondent (father) that brother of petitioner (mother) with the consent of their mother had handed over the minor to the respondent (father); even if taken as true, could not entitle the father to retain custody when mother of the minor was not willing to hand her over
Father had the right to approach the court of competent jurisdiction (Guardian Court) for the custody of minor
Constitutional petition was allowed and interim custody of minor was handed over to the petitioner, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, J.
Petitioner before me is a mother seeking recovery of her minor daughter Mst. Sana Fatima from the alleged improper or illegal custody of respondents Nos.4 to
8. Before approaching this Court through the constitutional petition in hand, she filed a petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang who dismissed the same on 02.01.2020. In pursuance to a notice issued to respondent No.5, he has produced the minor.
2. Arguments heard. File perused.
3. Petitioner was divorced by respondent No.5 in the year 2015 when minor Mst. Sana Fatima was just a three months suckling baby. Having been divorced, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of the minor against the said respondent which was decreed in her favour on 23.02.2017 but respondent No.5 avoided the process of law and instead of fulfilling his moral and legal responsibility of providing maintenance to the child, became fugitive from law and consequently warrants of arrest were issued against the said respondent during execution proceedings of the decree. Though the parties are having their different stance with regard to the manner of change of custody of the minor on 21.12.2019 yet there is no denial to the fact that prior to the said date minor Mst. Sana Fatima was not residing with her father, respondent No.5 and that she was not being maintained by him since 2015. The fact being furnished by learned counsel for respondent No.5 to the effect that Ghulam Shabbir, brother of petitioner with the consent of their mother himself handed over the custody of Mst. Sana Fatima to the respondent, even is taken as true, even then they cannot be deemed entitled to do so when mother of the minor, the petitioner is not willing to do so and she is desirous to continue the custody of the minor, her daughter. Respondent No.5, no doubt, has the right to approach the learned court of competent jurisdiction for the custody of minor but not otherwise. In the light of mentioned supra, this petition is allowed and interim custody of Mst. Sana Fatima, the minor is handed over to the petitioner. However, respondent No.5 may continue to seek permanent custody of the minor from the learned Guardian Court concerned, if so advised and if he does so, the learned court below shall proceed with and decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations given by this Court in this order which being tentative in nature are meant to deal with the petition in hand only. SA/I-2/L Petition allowed.