1998 PLP 1037 (SCMR)
Mst. FARHANA ZAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Leader NAJEEB ASHRAF and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1037 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon and Munawar Ahmad Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. FARHANA ZAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Leader NAJEEB ASHRAF and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1037 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1037 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Munawar Ahmad Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1037 (SCMR) (Mst. FARHANA ZAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Leader NAJEEB ASHRAF and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gul Zarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ijaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1996,
- Gul Zarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ijaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 26‑9‑1995, of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in W.P. No.646 of 1993). ‑‑‑Arts. 199 & 185(3)‑‑‑Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25 Custody of minor‑‑‑Concurrent findings by two Courts below‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that the two Courts below (if exclusive jurisdiction having given concurrent findings of fact by recording evidence of the parties and correctly appreciating the law regulating to custody of minors, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with such concurrent findings, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution and substituting its own opinion as if it was hearing appeal against the orders passed by the Courts below.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMOON, J.
This petition is directed against the judgment dated 26-9-1995 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution set aside the concurrent findings of the learned Family Judge and the learned Additional District Judge and awarded custody of the minors to respondent No. 1.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner and respondent No. l were married in the year 1982, and three children Mobeen Ashraf, Mohsan Ashraf and Sonia were born to them. The parents were subsequently divorced and the children have been since living with the petitioner mother, who is residing with her father Dr. Javed Rasul Zar, who was Medical Superintendent of Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi.
3. Respondent No.1 filed an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act before the Family Court for custody of the minor children. The petitioner contested the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge/Family Judge, Rawalpindi, after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence, oral as well as documentary, dismissed the application by an exhaustive order dated 3-2-1993, and appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the concurrent findings and the orders passed by the two Courts below, and substituting his own findings, awarded custody of the children to the respondent No.
1. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the learned Judge in the Lahore High Court in awarding the custody of the minors to respondent No. l had relied upon the case reported as Imtiaz Begum v. Tariq Mahmood and others (1995 CLC 800), but in this very cited case leave has already been granted by this Court.
5. Learned counsel next contended that the two Courts below of exclusive jurisdiction having given concurrent findings on the question of fact by recording evidence of the parties and correctly appreciating the law regulating custody of the minors, it was not open to the learned High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, and substituting its own opinion as if it were hearing appeal against the orders passed by the Courts below.
6. The contentions require consideration. Leave is accordingly granted. Interim order dated 15-11-1995 to continue till disposal of the appeal. M.B.A./F-17/S Leave granted.