Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 408 of 1974, decided on 15th October 1974.
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Court issuing notice to respondent to show cause why pending hearing of appeal petitioner be not permitted to see minor girl during each week end and later directing petitioner to be permitted to see minor during week end ‑Petitioner complaining of respondent having failed to comply with Court's order and praying for drawing up of contempt proceedings against respondent‑Respondent on other hand asking for drawing up of such proceedings against petitioner for his mis‑statement and concealment of facts and misinterpretation of Court's order‑ Parties, however, coming to a broad consensus with regard to manner, occasion, and time, in, on, or at which minor shall be seen by petitioner and not pressing their applications‑Order passed as consented to by parties.
Ch. Amjad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 15th October 1974.
.‑These are two miscellaneous applications submitted in connection with the order passed by this Court on the 3rd of July, 1974, granting leave to appeal. On the same date the Court directed issue of a notice to respondent Umar Draz to show cause why pending the hearing of the appeal, petitioner Bashir Ahmad should not be permitted to see the minor girl (stated to be 10 years old) concerned during each week end. On the 5th of July, 1974, pending the hearing of the show cause notice, the Court passed an order directing that the petitioner be permitted to see the minor during the week end.
The petitioner has complained that the respondent failed to comply with the order of this Court dated the 5th of July, 1974. He has, inter alia, prayed for suitable action against the respondent to enforce the obedience of the said order, and for punishing the respondent for contempt of Court. This is the subject‑matter of the miscellaneous application by Bashir Ahmad. Umar Draz on the contrary has asked for drawing of a contempt proceeding against Bashir Ahmad on the ground that the latter vas guilty of misstating and concealing facts and misinterpreting the Court's order dated the 5th of July, 1974.
It may be stated here that during the last long vacation an order was passed by one of us. The main question now for consideration before us is whether this interim order shall continue, and if so in what form. There has been a. broad consensus of the parties on this question and we accordingly pass the following order :‑
Pending the disposal of the appeal the interim order shall continue subject to the modifications that each Saturday afternoon the girl shall be delivered to her father, the said Bashir Ahmad and collected from him by her maternal grand‑father Sh. Umar Draz every Sunday evening. During school vacations the girl shall be permitted by Sh. Umar Draz to reside with the father for at least half of the vacation. During the Eid Festivals the girl shall be delivered to the father at 8 a. m. on the Eid day and collected by the maternal grand‑father the same day at 3 p.m.
In view of this order the parties did not press their respective miscel laneous applications and they are accordingly dismissed as such.
Order accordingly:
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer