1999 PLP 3430 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus TARIQ MEHMOOD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3430 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus TARIQ MEHMOOD and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3430 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3430 (MLD)?
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: 1999 PLP 3430 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus TARIQ MEHMOOD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
- Khizar Abbas Khan for Respondents
- 2. Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 who is stated to be the father of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi who confirms that the respondent is her father. The learned counsel has reproduced a document purporting to be a Talaqnama written on 22-7-1997 and signed by the petitioner. It also carries the name of the witnesses. The petitioner was confronted with this document he submits that he has not executed any such document and the present such document is not executed by him and that still Mst. Shahnaz is his wife. Under the circumstances, Mst. Shahnaz and her two minor daughters are set at liberty and are allowed to go with Muhammad Afzal petitioner. The habeas corpus petition is disposed of. As far as the said document is concerned the learned counsel for the respondents may avail his remedy in an appropriate Court. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491
Alleged detenu who was wife of petitioner appeared in Court alongwith her minor children and stated that she was in the house of her father with her own will and she had also stated in Court that she would like to go with petitioner who was her husband
Petitioner denied execution of Talaqnama allegedly executed by him
Alleged detenue, wife of petitioner alongwith her minor children, was allowed to go with petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
S. 491
Alleged detenu who was wife of petitioner appeared in Court alongwith her minor children and stated that she was in the house of her father with her own will and she had also stated in Court that she would like to go with petitioner who was her husband
Petitioner denied execution of Talaqnama allegedly executed by him
Alleged detenue, wife of petitioner alongwith her minor children, was allowed to go with petitioner. Khan Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. Khizar Abbas Khan for Respondents Mst. Shahnaz Bibi alongwith her two minor daughters Mst Shabana aged 4 years and Mst. Rizwana aged 1-1/2 years are present in Court. The report of the bailiff has been perused. Mst. Shahnaz Bibi was questioned about her presence in the house of Ahmed Khan respondent. She says that she was there with her own will. She has been asked where she would like to go. She submits that she would like to go with her husband Muhammad Afzal who is present in Court today.
2. Mr. Khizar Abbas Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 who is stated to be the father of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi who confirms that the respondent is her father. The learned counsel has reproduced a document purporting to be a Talaqnama written on 22-7-1997 and signed by the petitioner. It also carries the name of the witnesses. The petitioner was confronted with this document he submits that he has not executed any such document and the present such document is not executed by him and that still Mst. Shahnaz is his wife. Under the circumstances, Mst. Shahnaz and her two minor daughters are set at liberty and are allowed to go with Muhammad Afzal petitioner. The habeas corpus petition is disposed of. As far as the said document is concerned the learned counsel for the respondents may avail his remedy in an appropriate Court. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. H.B.T,/M-791/L Order accordingly.