PLD 2024

P L D 2024 High Court (AJ&K) 13 (PLP)

Kh. ZAHID MIR — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, KOTLI and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
2024-January-23
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 2024 High Court (AJ&K) 13 (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties Kh. ZAHID MIR — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, KOTLI and another — Respondents
Primary Law (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2024 High Court (AJ&K) 13 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2024 High Court (AJ&K) 13 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2024 High Court (AJ&K) 13 (PLP) (Kh. ZAHID MIR — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, KOTLI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)

Representation

  • Raja Arshad Latif for Petitioner.
  • Yasir Hussain Chaudhry for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 12 & 25

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993 (XI of 1994), S. 5, Sched.

Date of birth of the minor

Dispute

Document (Form B) issued by the NADRA

Presumption of truth/ correctness

Scope

In guardianship application before the Family Court, both the parents filed separate applications asserting contradictory date(s) of birth of the minor with difference of almost three years

Family Court accepted the date of birth asserted by the mother against which order petitioner/father filed a writ petition

Validity

Record revealed that, for the purpose of obtaining guardian-ship of the minor girl, the petitioner/father opted to produce only the birth certificate of the minor issued by the concerned secretary Union Council whereas the mother/respondent not only produced such birth certificate but also "Form B" duly issued by the National Database Registration Authority (NADRA)

Document issued by the NADRA has a presumption of truth

Presumption of correctness is attached to the record of the NADRA unless contrary is proved or same is nullified by any Court of law

If the petitioner/father wanted to seek declaration that one of dates of birth was correct and the other fake, he could approach the Civil Court by filing a suit in said regard

Thus the application filed by the mother/respondent was rightly accepted by the Family Court

Writ petition filed by the father, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Art. 44

Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Ss. 12 & 25

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993 (XI of 1994), S. 5, Sched.

Interlocutory order passed by the Family Court

Writ jurisdiction, invoking of

Date of birth of the minor

Dispute

Disputed question of fact requiring evidence cannot be resolved by the High Court while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Art. 44 of the Azad Jammu Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Writ jurisdiction can be invoked in extra-ordinary circumstances when no other adequate remedy under the umbrella of general law is provided, and that too by indicating any violation of law

Writ jurisdiction is not akin to civil suit and it carries set protocols and limits

Thus, indulgence in interlocutory order of the Family Court was declined

Application filed by the mother/respondent was rightly accepted by the Family Court

Writ petition filed by the father, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

SYED SHAHID BAHAR, J.

The instant writ petition under Article 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, has been filed to set aside the order passed by Judge Family Court Kotli dated 17.09.2019 as well as to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to accept the application of the petitioner and to record the remaining evidence of witnesses. The controversy between the parties relates to different dates of birth of the minor. According to the petitioner the minor was born at her grandmother's home on 09.06.2006 which was also endorsed along with her name by grandmother in the office of Secretary Municipal Corporation Kotli on 22.07.2006, but mother of minor, respondent No.2, made "Form B" from the office of NADRA Kotli where she endorsed a different date of birth of the minor as 04.04.2009 which is entirely contradictory to the birth registration certificate issued on the request and application of the minor's grandmother on 22.07.2006. The petitioner moved an application before the Family Court for guardianship and permission to submit birth certificate of the minor on 10.01.2018, whereas respondent No.2 also filed an application for guardianship in the Court of Judge Family Court Kotli on 14.09.2017. The Court below after taking objections upon the rival applications as well as hearing the rival parties dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein vide order dated 17.09.2019, hence, the instant writ petition. Arguments on behalf of the parties heard and record perused. The learned counsel' for the parties reiterated the grounds taken in their pleadings, so, there is no need to produce the same in black and white. The record reveals that both the parties filed applications for guardianship of the minor in the Court below. It reveals that petitioner, for the purpose of obtaining guardianship of the minor opted to produce birth certificate of the minor according to which minor was born on 09.06.2006 but her date of birth was shown different by her mother/ respondent No.2 as 04.04.2009 in the birth certificate issued on her application. The Court below decided the matter in detail after taking thorough probe into the matter. It reveals that respondent No.2 obtained birth certificate on 24.09.2018 which has been issued by Secretary Union Council Kotli, whereas the produced "Form B" was issued by NADRA which has a presumption of truth. In these circumstances, the application filed by respondent No.2 in the Court below was accepted and the application filed by the petitioner herein before the Court below was rejected. It also seems that two different dates of minor's birth were claimed by the parties in the Court below. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein. The matter relates to correction of entries in the birth certificate and the Family Court is not vested with the powers to correct any of the same. However, presumption of correctness is attached to the record of NADRA unless contrary proved or same is nullified by any Court of law. If the petitioner wants to seek declaration that which one of both is correct and which one is fake, he can approach the Civil Court by filing a suit in this regard. Disputed question of fact requiring evidence cannot be resolved by this Court while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, 1974. Writ jurisdiction can be invoked in extra ordinary circumstances when no other adequate remedy under the umbrella of General Law is not provided, that too by indicating any violation of law. Writ jurisdiction is not akin to civil suit. It carries set protocols and limits. Thus, indulgence is declined, interlocutory order of the Family Court merits no interference. The writ is not maintainable. Thus, in this view of the matter, it can safely be said that the Court below arrived at a just conclusion. In view of above discussion, the writ petition in hand is dismissed with no order as to the costs. File shall be consigned record accordingly. MQ/10/HC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.