1975 PLP 229 (SCMR)
MATIN-UD-DIN AHMAD -Petitioner Versus Mst. NOOR AFSHAN-Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP 229 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Waheeduddin Ahmad and Anwarul Haq, JJ |
| Parties | MATIN-UD-DIN AHMAD -Petitioner Versus Mst. NOOR AFSHAN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 229 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 229 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Waheeduddin Ahmad and Anwarul Haq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 229 (SCMR) (MATIN-UD-DIN AHMAD -Petitioner Versus Mst. NOOR AFSHAN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Hussain Sial, Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by Sh. Salahuddin Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 5th April 1974.
- Manzoor Hussain Sial, Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by Sh. Salahuddin Advocate-on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated the 28th November 1973, in C. M. No. 3746-C of 1973).
Art. 185-Clarification of High Court's order sought and clarifica tion made by High Court found to accord with its original order-- No error committed in clarification-No ground, held, made out for interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
WAHEHDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑Office note shows that the petition is barred by 172 days. The explanation of the petitioner is that he has filed petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated the 28th November 1973. If this order is taken into consideration the petition is within time. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the custody of Miss Samar Amin (minor), who was born on the 31st January 1967. The petitioner is the father and respondent is the mother of the minor. The matter was compromised between the parties in the High Court and it was agreed that the custody of the child will remain with the mother. It was further agreed rat the petitioner will get the minor admitted in Queen Mary College. While in hostel, the child will be notionally deemed to be under the supervision of the respondent. The petitioner will, however, have a right to meet the child as many tines as the rules of the institution permit. The learned Single Judge further directed that during the winter vacation, the child will remain for the first four days with the mother and the petitioner will be entitled to the actual custody of the child for the next four days after which the child will go back to the respondent. It was further directed that during the long summer vacation, the child will remain for the first week with the mother and after that will be handed over to the petitioner who will keep her for three weeks. The petitioner filed an application for clarification of this order and the learned Single Judge by order dated the 26th November 1973, reiterated his order. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the clarification made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is in accordance with the original order passed by him. There is no error committed in it. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.