Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ZAFAR versus MUHAMMAD AHMED

Section 5, Schedule and 17A (Family Courts (Amendment) Ordinance (LV of 2002))] Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application of past and future care by minors For the current restitution of the case, the interim injunction denied them the responsibility to pay for the care on the basis that, according to the terms of the divorce, the minor was to be in custody of the mother and the maternal grandparents were retained. Instructed the father to pay Rs.1000 / - per head from the date of entry in writing. (PLD 1958 LA 596), he was not responsible for the care of minors, in accordance with the law laid down in the PLR. The correct written statement did not reveal that the father was ever anxious or abusive. Demands for the custody of minors, whether son or daughter in the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (PLD 1958 LA 596), did not prohibit the judge from approving an order for rehabilitation by the Family Court, Who was in every way a judge and authorized by law to pass such an order. Unlike the present case, the High Court dismissed the constitutional petition solicitors from Upper Deval lawyer