1990 PLP 455 (SCMR)
Mst. KANEEZ BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 455 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. KANEEZ BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 455 (SCMR)?
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 1990 PLP 455 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 455 (SCMR) (Mst. KANEEZ BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Khuda Dad Khan Barki, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Qamarud Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st June,1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 31‑1‑1989 in W.P. No. 3345 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Custody of minor‑‑‑High Court while taking all the relevant facts into consideration observed, "the findings recorded by the learned District Judge in this case even if considered in the light of the evidence of the petitioner as discussed above do not suffer from any misreading or non‑reading"‑‑‑Judgment of High Court being in accordance with law, held, called for no interference‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st June,1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 31‑1‑1989. The High Court by means of the impugned judgment dismissed the Constitution petition where by the petitioner had prayed that the order of the District Judge dated 22‑7‑1.984 be set aside and that of the Guardian Judge dated 21‑5‑1983 restored. The Guardian Judge, Jhang, gave custody of the minor to the petitioner. Muhammad Bakhsh, father of the minor, riled appeal. The District Judge allowed that. The petitioner invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the High Court. Her petition was dismissed. Hence this petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He could not urge any legal point but was all along submitting that the petitioner, mother of the minor, was the best suitable person for the custody of the child. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had been looking after the minor. She had been giving him education. Welfare of the minor which is always of paramount consideration in such like litigation demands that he should remain in the custody of the mother. The High Court took all the relevant facts into consideration and observed, "The findings recorded by the learned District Judge in this case even if considered in the light of the evidence of the petitioner as discussed above do not suffer from any misreading or non‑reading". Judgment of the High Court being in accordance with law calls for no interference. Not a fit case for leave to appeal. Dismissed. M.A.K./121/S Petition dismissed.