1985 PLP 1926 (SCMR)
Mst. MAHMOODA SULTANA — Petitioner Versus Mst. JAMILA BEGUM — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1926 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and |
| Parties | Mst. MAHMOODA SULTANA — Petitioner Versus Mst. JAMILA BEGUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1926 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1926 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1926 (SCMR) (Mst. MAHMOODA SULTANA — Petitioner Versus Mst. JAMILA BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.W. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 1985.
- A.W. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 20-12-1978 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in F.A.Os. Nos. 317 and 318 of 1978). --Art. 185(3)--Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 17- Appointment of guardian--Minor girl--Mother found to be proper person by Courts below--Finding not suffering from any legal defect nor otherwise infirm--Such finding held, not open to interference--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The contest is between the grandmother (petitioner herein) and the mother (responded herein) of Mst. Faraz Wajid, a minor girl, with regard td the question as to who should be appointed as the guardian of her property and to whom should her custody be entrusted?
2. The Court below have found her mother to be the proper person in this regard. The grandmother has challenged this finding through this petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has not been able to show that the finding recorded by the Courts below suffers from any legal defect or is otherwise infirm. We do not, therefore, find any ground for interference.
4. These petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. M. I. Petitions dismissed.