2001 SCMR 1441 (PLP)
Miss HERA ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAHNAZ FARZANA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 SCMR 1441 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and |
| Parties | Miss HERA ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAHNAZ FARZANA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 SCMR 1441 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 SCMR 1441 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 SCMR 1441 (PLP) (Miss HERA ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAHNAZ FARZANA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 7‑7‑2000 of the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit Bench passed in C. P. No. S‑175 of 2000). Islamic Law‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973),. Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Custody of minor‑‑ Unclean hands‑‑‑Order passed by Court‑‑‑Non‑compliance‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Dispute was regarding the custody of the minor‑‑‑Despite the fact that High Court had directed the father of the minor to hand over the custody to her mother, he did not comply with the direction‑‑‑Matter of custody had also been decided against the father‑‑‑Father, in order to defy the orders, had filed the petition for leave to appeal through the petitioner (minor herself)‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Father of the petitioner (minor) did trot comply with the various orders` of Guardian Court‑‑‑Father; thus, having not come to the Court with clean hands, not availed the alternative remedy before approaching the High Court leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J .‑‑‑Petitioner, Miss Hera, seeks leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; against order dated 7‑7‑2000 of a learned Judge in Chamber, High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench Hyderabad, whereby her Petition No. S‑175 of 2000 was dismissed in limine.
2. The dispute is about custody of the petitioner. She was born in 1983 out of wed‑lock of her father Shahzad Muhammad Siddique and mother Mst.Shahnaz. On 25‑11‑1986, respondent No.3, Shahzad Muhammad Siddique was directed by the Guardian Court to produce the petitioner in the Court, but said order was not complied with. It appears that, thereafter on several dates, said respondent was directed to produce petitioner before the Court and the respondent flouted those orders. Last time on 5‑5‑2000, the Guardian Court had again directed said respondent to comply with the order dated 13‑11‑1986, regarding production of the minor/petitioner before the Court, but, as usual, said order was not complied with. The respondent was also directed to hand over custody of the petitioner to her mother and this order was not implemented. On 1 6‑5‑2000, the petitioner filed the Petition No.S‑175 of 2000 before High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad and challenged the validity of order dated 5‑5‑2000. The petition was dismissed by the order, which has been impugned in this petition.
3. High Court while disposing of the petition observed as follows:‑‑ "...From the record it appears that the respondent No.3 is not prepared to handover the custody of minor to mother at any cost. The impugned order dated 5‑5‑2000 passed by Senior Civil and Family Judge in Guardianship Application No.80 of 1986 is proper and legal. The alternate remedy is available to petitioner but said order has not been challenged in appeal. Under these circumstances, this Constitutional petition cannot be maintained and is hereby dismissed in limine."
4. It appears that on one pre‑text or the other, the father of the petitioner did not comply with the various orders of the Guardian Court. This time, in order to defy the same, he got filed this petition through minor/petitioner herself. The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands, nor availed the alternate remedy before approaching the High Court. The petition has no merits.
5. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./H‑33/S Petition dismissed.