2006 PLP 135 (MLD)
IRFAN AHMED — Petitioner Versus II-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE EAST, AT KARACHI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 135 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IRFAN AHMED — Petitioner Versus II-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE EAST, AT KARACHI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 135 (MLD)?
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 2006 PLP 135 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 135 (MLD) (IRFAN AHMED — Petitioner Versus II-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE EAST, AT KARACHI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sathi M. Ishaque for Petitioner.
- Nehal Hashmi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.5 & Sched., 14(3) [as amended by Family Courts Act (Amendment) Ordinance (LV of 2002).] & 17
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition, maintainability of
Section 14(3) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had provided no appeal or revision against an interim order of Family Court, constitutional petition being the only remedy same was maintainable
Petition was admitted to regular hearing by consent, and date of hearing was fixed
Both counsel of parties agreed that they would make efforts to work out amenable `settlement' between the parties
Petitioner undertook that he would comply with impugned order subject to result of present constitutional petition
Respondent also agreed that visitation rights would be available to petitioner for four hours on every Friday so that he could collect the minors.
Judgment & Decree
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CJ.
To be filed before the next date. As regards the maintainability of this petition, learned counsel has urged that under the newly added section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act, an appeal or a revision does not lie against an interim order of a Family Court and therefore, this petition appears to be the only remedy. I am also conscious that a Full Bench of this Court in Zaibun Nisa v. Muhammad Muzzamil (PLD 1972 Karachi 401) has clearly held that in view of section 17 of the Family Courts Act, section 115, C.P.C. will not apply and therefore a revision will not be maintainable. Considering the above Full Bench judgment of this Court, it is not possible to rely on the view taken by some Indian Courts and this petition is found to be maintainable. By consent the petition is admitted to regular hearing and fixed on 28-10-2005 and both learned counsel agree that they will make efforts to work out amicable settlement. The petitioner undertakes that he will comply with the impugned order subject to the result of this petition instantly and the respondent agree that visitation rights will be available to the petitioner for four hours every Friday so that he may collect the minors from the house between 4 and 5 p.m. and re-deliver them at the house of the respondent's father before 9-00 p.m. The petitioner may also visit the respondent or the minors at the residence of her father at any other time by mutual agreement but will not remove the children except as stated above.
3. To come up along with main petition. H.B.T./I-38/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.