P L D 1995 Peshawar 77 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD GUL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAHRU BIBI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1995 Peshawar 77 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Shakirullah Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD GUL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAHRU BIBI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1995 Peshawar 77 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1995 Peshawar 77 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Shakirullah Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1995 Peshawar 77 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD GUL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAHRU BIBI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Baloch for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 3 & 17‑A‑‑‑Senior Civil Judge and District Judge in their capacity as guardian Courts, were real guardian of a minor and in looking after welfare of minor they could order certain things even suo motu. ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of ‑‑‑Relief under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court would be granted only when some grave injustice was going to take place against a person who had come to Court with clean hands‑‑‑When neither any injustice had occurred nor forums below had acted without jurisdiction nor petitioner had come with clean hands, Constitutional petition would not be maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.‑‑The findings of Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court and District Judge, D.I. Khan dated 15‑2‑1994 and 22‑6‑1994 respectively are sought to be reversed through this writ petition on the ground that the maintenance of respondent‑wife Mst. Shahru is decreed against the fact, without having been alleged in the statement and that of the minor was decreed till his attainment of majority despite the fact that it was never asked for such period.
2. It is matter of concern to note that a maintenance of extremely in sufficient amount of Rs.300 per month and that too up to the period of iddat, is being assailed through invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Equally, insufficient amount of Rs.300 per month for the minor who is the son of the petitioner is challenged through instant petition, little realising, that the petitioner is the natural guardian of the minor and it is his duty to support him financially till the time he attains majority. A Senior Civil Judge and the District Judge in their capacity as guardian Courts are the real guardians of a minor and in looking after the welfare of the minor they can order certain things even suo motu.
3. A relief under Article 199 of the Constitution granted only when such grave injustice is going to take place against a person who has come to Court with clean hands. Neither any injustice has occurred in the instant case nor the forums below have acted without jurisdiction nor the petitioner has come with clean hands, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1723/P Petition dismissed.