Recovery of children
Recovery of children legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Age of children was nine and seven years and petitioner could not claim her right of Hizanat/ custody of children, who were in the custody of their father being their natural guardian
Custody of children with their father could not be treated as illegal as he was responsible for their upbringing as a natural guardian
Petitioner/mother should file petition under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to claim the custody or visiting rights of children
Complaint to Station House Officer against husband for having custody of children did not mean that extraordinary circumstances had arisen for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
No case was made out for invoking jurisdiction of High Court for recovery/production of children in the court
Petitioner had equally, efficacious and alternate remedy under Guardians and Wards At, 1890 and she might file guardian petition if so advised as Guardian Judge had power of recovery of minors and regulating their interim custody
Constitutional petition was not maintainable which was dismissed in circumstances.
"Recovery of children", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124945659
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Recovery of children"
2014 M L D 519
Mst. SHAMSHAD BIBI — Petitioner Versus The S.S.P. and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh2014 M L D 1333
Mst. RABIA NOOR — Petitioner Versus SHAHZAD SHAH and 8 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh2018 S C M R 427
MIRJAM ABERRAS LEHDEAHO — Petitioner Versus SHO, POLICE STATION CHUNG, LAHORE and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2001 Y L R 1803
FARZANA SARWAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Court: QuettaP L D 1967 Lahore 977
Begum ZAINAB TIWANA-Petitioner Versus (1) Ch. AZIZ AHMAD WARAICH, DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE,
Court: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 9-Application for custody of minors-Not properly pursued by applicant because of "threats and juicy promises" proceeding from other party-Second similar application under Ss. 5 & 25, West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) dismissed as barred by O. IX, r. 9, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-Family Court's omission to deal with the question of "threats and juicy promises" which might amount to "coercion and fraud"-Adequate reason for treating such Court's order as "without legal authority and of no legal effect" within meaning of Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962)- Grindlay's Bank Ltd. v. Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. P L D 1954 Lah. 745 ref.; Badrul Haque Khan v. Election Tribunal, Dacca P L D 1963 S C 704; Jamal Shah v. Election Commission P L D 1966 S C 1 and Venkatagiri v. H. R. H. Board P L D 1949 P C 26 considered.2023 Y L R 34
Mst. ZAIB UN NISA — Petitioner Versus QASIM AZEEM and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench)2019 C L C Note 43
MOHAMMAD SALEEM — Petitioner Versus Mst. RUKHSANA — Respondent
Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)P L D 2012 Supreme Court 758
Mst. NADIA PERVEEN — Petitioner Versus Mst. ALMAS NOREEN and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 2014 Sindh 386
Mst. GHULZADI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Home Secretary and others — Respondents
Court: High Court1991 P C r
Mst. FAZLAN MAI — Appellant Versus RAB NAWAZ and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore