MLD 2013

2013 PLP 1625 (MLD)

Syed AHMED ALI — Applicant Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
2013-April-15
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2013 PLP 1625 (MLD)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members N/A
Parties Syed AHMED ALI — Applicant Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 2 others — Respondents
Primary Law (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1625 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1625 (MLD)?

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

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1625 (MLD) (Syed AHMED ALI — Applicant Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Headnotes / Summary

S. 491

Guardians and Wards Act (VII of 1890), S. 25

Habeas corpus petition for recovery of minor

Illegal detention of minor

Scope

Parent having free access to meet the minor regularly

Effect

Father of minor filed application under S. 491, Cr.P.C., claiming that a foreign court had passed an order in his favour, therefore minor had been illegally removed from his custody by the mother

Trial Court dismissed said application of father on the basis that order of foreign court was temporary and not conclusive and was passed in absence of the mother

Father also filed an application under S. 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before Family Court for custody of minor, but same was dismissed, and appeal thereagainst was also dismissed by the Appellate Court

Father had exhausted his remedy under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and order of Family Court had attained finality

Father was holding meetings with the minor in pursuance of order of Family Court on every alternate Saturday, which manifested that minor was not in illegal detention of her mother, nor her life was in danger

Minor was being produced before the Family Court and father had free access to meet her

Transferring custody of minor, in such circumstances, in exercise of power under S. 491, Cr.P.C was not warranted

Revision application was dismissed accordingly.

S. 491

Guardians and Wards Act (VII of 1890), S. 25

Habeas corpus petition

Interim order for custody of minor in exercise of S. 491, Cr.P.C.

Scope

High Court under S. 491, Cr.P.C., in appropriate cases, could pass interim order (for custody of minor) pending resolution of dispute by the Guardian Court.

Judgment & Decree

FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, J.

The applicant through the instant criminal revision application has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 8-6-2010 passed by learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central), (referred to hereinafter as trial court), dismissing the application under section 491, Cr.P.C, filed by the applicant Syed Ahmed Ali for restoration of custody of his minor daughter Mahrooh. The applicant in his application has stated that dispute arose between him and his wife Mst. Shazima Ahmed the respondent No.2 at Canada, she approached Canadian Court, however she illegally removed his daughter from his lawful custody, therefore he approached the Canadian Court for custody of minor, Canadian court passed order for handing over the minor Mahrooh to the applicant who thereafter approached the trial Court for implementation of the order of Canadian court through application under section 491, Cr.P.C.

2. The trial court after hearing the counsel for both the parties dismissed the application, observing that the order of the Canadian court was passed in absence of the respondent No.2, the same was also temporary and not conclusive order, therefore the provisions of section 13, C.P.C. for implementation of the order of foreign court are not attracted.

3. Besides the observation of the trial court, it would not be out of context to mention that the applicant also filed application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of his minor daughter Mahrooh Ahmed in the court of IInd Civil/Family Judge, Karachi (Central), the Family Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence led by both the parties and after hearing the counsel for both the parties dismissed the said application vide order dated 29-5-2010. The appellant assailed the order of Family Court in Family Appeal No.104 of 2010, however the appellate court has also dismissed the appeal being time barred, as the order of family court had attained finality.

4. It is settled law that appropriate proceedings, for ultimate custody of a minor would be before the Guardian Court, however the High Court under section 491, Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases can pass interim order pending the resolution of disputes by the Guardian Court, where the question of interest, welfare and the ultimate custody of the minor is to be adjudicated after proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances. The applicant has exhausted the remedy provided under the Guardians and Wards Act, and has lost case for custody of minor Mahrooh.

5. Learned counsel during arguments, to a query, has admitted that in pursuance of the order of Family Court, the applicant is holding meetings with the minor baby Mahrooh on every alternate Saturday, which manifests that minor Mahrooh is not in illegal detention of her mother, nor her life is in danger. Admittedly minor is being produced before the family Court and the applicant has free access to meet her, in the circumstances no order for transfer of custody of minor Mahrooh from her mother to the applicant in exercise of powers under section 491 Cr.P.C. is warranted, learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, requiring the interference of this court in its revisional jurisdiction. The criminal revision application is dismissed accordingly. MWA/A-54/K Application dismissed.