2012 PLP 1932 (CLC)
ZAHOOR AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. FAHIMA HAFEEZ and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1932 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAHOOR AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. FAHIMA HAFEEZ and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1932 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1932 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1932 (CLC) (ZAHOOR AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. FAHIMA HAFEEZ and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shakeel Ahmad for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 & Sched.
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Father (petitioner) of the minor assailed concurrent findings of the courts below whereby custody of the minor was allowed to remain with the mother
Contention of the father was that mother had a contagious disease
Concurrent findings of courts below on the question of welfare of minor could not be interfered with in the Constitutional Jurisdiction of High Court
Age of minor was about four years and therefore, mother was entitled to the custody as a matter of right under Islamic Law up to the age of Hizanat
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.
This writ petition is directed against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 21-2-2012 of Family Judge/Court, District Karak and judgment and decree dated 12-5-2012 of learned appellate court, whereby the custody of the minor namely Muhammad Mushaf Jamal aged about 4 years was allowed to remain with the respondent No.1, who is the real mother of the minor, whereas petitioner No.1 is the grandfather and petitioner No.2 is father, living abroad.
2. In support of the above petition, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the two courts below have not taken into consideration the welfare of the minor and had totally ignored the serious disease i.e. Hepatitis 'C', which is contagious disease and that there is every possibility that virus of the said disease would transfer to the minor if he remained in the custody of the respondent No.1. After arguing the case at some length, learned counsel requested the court that he will be satisfied if the direction/observation is made that father (petitioner No.2) is entitled to see his child periodically.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. There are concurrent findings of two courts below on the question of welfare of minor and therefore the same cannot be interfered within the constitutional petition. Moreover, the age of the minor is about four years and therefore, the mother is entitled to the custody as a matter of right under the Muslim law upto the age of hazanat.
5. We, therefore, are not inclined to admit the above petition but before dismissing the above petition, however, we may observe that the petitioner No.2 being the father is entitled to see his child. It will be open to the petitioner No.2 to approach the original family court through an application for fixing time to allow him to see the child once in a week after making into consideration the convenience of both the parties and of the minor.
6. With the above observation, this petition is dismissed in limine. Observation accordingly. KMZ/27/P Petition dismissed.