2003 PLP 1344 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD TAHIR — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAEESA FATIMAH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1344 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TAHIR — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAEESA FATIMAH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1344 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1344 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1344 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD TAHIR — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAEESA FATIMAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- A.G. Tariq, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16-10-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W. P. No. 13800 of 1999).
S.25
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Principle of welfare of minors
Mother of three minor children sought their custody
Family Court dismissed the suit but the Appellate Court accepted the appeal and allowed the custody to the mother
Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were maintained by High Court in Constitutional petition
Father of the minors contended that welfare of minors was with him as the mother had developed illicit relations with another person, she was illiterate and did not have any known sources of income
High Court had found the mother of minors to be educated who could provide better education to the minors and it was further found that even if the income of the mother was lesser than that of the father of the minors, the same was enough for the proper education and maintenance of the minors‑‑ Father of the minors failed to substantiate the allegations against the mother‑‑‑Mother of the minors did not contract second marriage after getting divorce‑‑‑Judgment of High Court did not call for any interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑No question of law of public importance being involved‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. A.G. Tariq, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th April, 2002. FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks the grant of leave to appeal from order, dated 16‑10‑2001 passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 13800 of 1999.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 an ex‑wife of the petitioner filed, against the petitioner, a suit for custody of minor but school‑going children namely, Mst. Khubra Fatima, Waqar Ali and Muddasar Ali aged 12, 11 and 10 years respectively. The Family Court/Guardian Judge, Lahore by judgment and decree, dated 7‑10‑1998 dismissed the suit of respondent No.1. However, her appeal was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Lahore by judgment and decree, dated 18‑12‑1999. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 13800 of 1999 there against. The same was dismissed, by the impugned judgment, dated 16‑10‑2001, by the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the parties belonged to the Shia sect', therefore; keeping in view the age of the minor children the petitioner was entitled to their custody. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 1 had developed illicit relations with one Muhammad Arshad. It would not be safe and in the interest of the minors to entrust their custody to the respondent No.1. The learned counsel lastly contended that respondent No. 1 was not in a position to maintain the children adequately with proper education as she was illiterate and without any known sources of income.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that respondent No. 1 was under‑Matriculate and was teaching in a school. The other allegations against the respondent No. 1 were baseless. The minor children remained in the custody of the respondent No. l throughout. The petitioner succeeded in obtaining the order, dated 6‑12‑2001 from this Court for the interim custody of minor children by mis‑statement.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The Lahore High Court had affirmed the judgment of the Additional District Judge on the ground that it was based on proper facts and law. The respondent No. 1 was .found to be educated who could provide better education to the minors if they were given in her custody. The learned Judge in Chambers took the view that even if income of respondent No. 1 was lesser than the petitioner, the same was enough for the proper education and maintenance of the minors. The allegations against respondent No. 1 were not substantiated. The respondent No. 1 does not seem to have contracted a re‑marriage so far after getting the divorce from the petitioner. The impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court does not call for any interference. The case does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance.
6. This petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs. M.H./M‑533/S Petition dismissed.