2006 PLP 1636 (YLR)
TANVIR ABBAS — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIA YAQOOB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1636 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | TANVIR ABBAS — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIA YAQOOB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1636 (YLR)?
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 2006 PLP 1636 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1636 (YLR) (TANVIR ABBAS — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIA YAQOOB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Javed for Petitioner.
- Ch. Ahmad Khan Gondal for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
S.25
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below
Family Court declined to hand over custody of minor son to father
During pendency of appeal before Appellate Court, father of the minor stated that he belonged to Fiqa-e-Jaafaria and wanted to amend his application accordingly
Appellate Court did not allow the amendment and dismissed the appeal
Father had never claimed, even in grounds of appeal before Appellate Court, that he belonged to Figa-e-Jaafaria
Application of the father was rightly dismissed, as the same was an attempt to set out a new case and cause of action
High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the order passed by Appellate Court refusing to allow such amendment--No misreading or non-reading of evidence or any legal or factual infirmity in decisions had been established on account of which two concurrent findings could be interfered
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Ali Abbas is the offspring of the wedlock between the parties, who presently is 5 years of age. The petitioner brought an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking the custody of the minor, which has been rejected by the Court after the trial; petitioner's appeal has also failed.
2. It is stated, that the petitioner belongs to Fiqa-e-Jaaferia, and thus, accordingly moved an application seeking amendment in the petition, which has been erroneously rejected by the Court.
3. I am afraid that this has never been the case of the petitioner throughout, even in the grounds of appeal before the lower Court, this fact is not so mentioned, resultantly, the application has been rightly dismissed, which was attempted to set out a new case and cause of action. Thus, in my constitutional jurisdiction, I do not find appropriate to interfere in the order of the learned ADJ, refusing to allow the amendment. On the merits of the case no misreading or non-reading of the evidence or any legal or factual infirmity in the decisions has been established on account of which the two, concurrent findings can be interfered. However, while exercising my parental jurisdiction, I direct that the petitioner should be entitled to meet his minor son on first Saturday of each month, from 9-00 a.m. to 2-00 p.m., the respondent for that purpose, shall produce the minor before the Guardian Court at Mandi Baha-ud-Din and the petitioners shall have the custody during that time and shall return the custody through the Court to the respondent. It may be made clear, that during this period the petitioner may take the child out of the Court premises but shall not take him outside the jurisdiction of the Guardian Court at Mandi Baha-ud-Din and also shall not get the minor passport made. In case it is so done, the petitioner shall face the consequences of the disobedience and disregard of this Court's order. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. M.H./T-14/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.