Find a Lawyer

MST. ULFAT SHAHEEN versus AKRAM KHAN

Section 5, the Schedule, and the 14 Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Sections 47 and 48 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 of the Constitution Petition retainer granted the minor in custody of the minor, but the District of Appeal The judge overturned the verdict. The petitioner of the Guardian Judge had filed a constitutional petition against the decision of the District Judge, in which the respondents initially raised an objection that an amendment could be filed in view of 5% of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 which was an appropriate remedy. And that the constitutional petition filed by the petitioner was not authorized. Waldetti Family Court will not only have special jurisdiction to decide matters relating to the custody and guardianship of children, but will also be considered as a district court for the purposes of the Gardens and Wards Act 1890. That the appeal against a family court-approved order would lie to the District Judge under 5% of the West Pakistan Family Act of Courts, 1964, when the Family Court was headed by a judge under a judge, and the matter was concluded. If it did, the aggrieved person could file a constitutional petition in the High Court, and that too when the district judge's finding was based on a misinterpretation. , Not reading the evidence, misinterpretation of law and fact or on the grounds that it was unnecessary to record, though in view of section 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, against the order passed by the District Judge. Was amendable, but it cannot be read in isolation and in disregard of the West Pakistan Muslim Courts Act, 5: 144 of 1964, which, as a result of the subsequent legislation, has been passed on all other laws of that time. immigration advocates from Punch lawyer