1988 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. MUKHTAR MAI‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH RAKHIA‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Arif, J |
| Parties | Mst. MUKHTAR MAI‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH RAKHIA‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Arif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. MUKHTAR MAI‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH RAKHIA‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner.
- Shabbir Ahmed Khastagi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 491‑‑Habeas corpus‑‑Detenu, a minor daughter of respondent -father was illegally detained by him at the time she was recovered at the instance of her mother through intervention of Court‑‑Father not having obtained custody of minor girl in a lawful manner, she was given in the custody of her mother in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 491‑‑Habeas corpus‑‑Detenu, a minor daughter of respondent -father was illegally detained by him at the time she was recovered at the instance of her mother through intervention of Court‑‑Father not having obtained custody of minor girl in a lawful manner, she was given in the custody of her mother in circumstances. Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner. Shabbir Ahmed Khastagi for Respondent. Mst. Mukhtar Mai has filed this petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. praying that her minor daughter Mst. Saeed Mai aged about 6 years, who is being illegally detained by her father‑respondent, be got recovered and her custody handed over to her. The background for filing this petition is that petitioner's father Allah Diwaya got her recovered from the custody of her husband Allah Rakhia and she was allowed to accompany her father vide order dated 12‑7‑1987 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 879‑H of 1987. Her case is that on the day of her recovery in the said' petition, only her minor son Javid Ahmed aged 2 years had accompanied her but her minor daughter could not, as she had been hidden somewhere by the respondent.
2. Respondent‑Allah Rakhia has produced the minor Mst. Saeed Mai and states that the minor was voluntarily left behind by the petitioner when she was recovered by the bailiff in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 879‑H of 1987. A reference to the report of the bailiff in the said case, however, shows that the respondent was not even present at the place wherefrom the petitioner was recovered on 8‑7‑1987. As such, the version of the respondent that the minor was voluntarily left behind by the petitioner, is not correct. Prima facie, there is force in the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent did not obtain the custody of the minor in a lawful manner. In this view of the matter the custody of Mst. Saeed Mai, aged about 6 years, is handed over to the petitioner. This is, however, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to obtain the custody of the minor from the Family Court. S.G.D./M‑543/L Petition allowed.