1968 PLP 1435 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FAZAL NISHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1435 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FAZAL NISHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1435 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1435 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 1435 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FAZAL NISHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sayyid Sajjad Haider, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 14th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Bahawalpur Circuit, Baghdadul Jadid, dated the 31st May 1968, in F. A. O. No. 2 of 1968/(BWP). Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)
S.7‑Mother appointed guardian of minor daughters‑Argument that she did not possess enough money to bring up minors‑Held, rightly not accepted by High Court as reason for refusing her prayer Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court. ORDER ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The respondent Mst. Fazal Nishan filed an application under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act for being appointed a guardian for the custody of her two sons and four daughters. The application was resisted by the petitioner, the husband. The learned Judge on a consideration of the evidence produced by the parties appointed Fazal Nishan guardian of the persons of her minor daughters, namely, Mst. Irshad Bibi (10/I1 years), Shamim Bibi (8/9 years), Nawab Bibi (6/7 years), and Razia Bibi (31 years). The two sons, Muhammad Rafiq (19 years) and Shafiq (7 years) were permitted to continue to live with the petitioner. First appeal preferred by the petitioner against this order was dismissed in limine. The only ground urged in support of the petition is that as the respondent was living in adultery with a stranger she was not entitled to the custody of her minor daughters. In the written statement filed by the petitioner no such allegation was made. It was not suggested in cross‑examination that she was of immoral character. An' attempt was made to prove this through Muhammad Rafiq, a son. This has rightly been held to have not succeeded. The learned Judges in the High Court also rightly found that the argument that Mst. Fazal Nishan did not have enough means to bring up the minor daughters could not be accepted as a reason' For refusing her prayer. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The respondent Mst. Fazal Nishan filed an application under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act for being appointed a guardian for the custody of her two sons and four daughters. The application was resisted by the petitioner, the husband. The learned Judge on a consideration of the evidence produced by the parties appointed Fazal Nishan guardian of the persons of her minor daughters, namely, Mst. Irshad Bibi (10/I1 years), Shamim Bibi (8/9 years), Nawab Bibi (6/7 years), and Razia Bibi (31 years). The two sons, Muhammad Rafiq (19 years) and Shafiq (7 years) were permitted to continue to live with the petitioner. First appeal preferred by the petitioner against this order was dismissed in limine. The only ground urged in support of the petition is that as the respondent was living in adultery with a stranger she was not entitled to the custody of her minor daughters. In the written statement filed by the petitioner no such allegation was made. It was not suggested in cross‑examination that she was of immoral character. An' attempt was made to prove this through Muhammad Rafiq, a son. This has rightly been held to have not succeeded. The learned Judges in the High Court also rightly found that the argument that Mst. Fazal Nishan did not have enough means to bring up the minor daughters could not be accepted as a reason' For refusing her prayer. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. Leave refused.