Find a Lawyer

C.P.No.S-553 of 2014, decided on 29th August, 2014.

----S. 12---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Custody of minors---Father meeting minors on court premises on orders of Guardian Judge---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court to interfere in such matter---Scope---Father claimed that mother had violated order of Guardian Judge by not letting him meet the minors (aged 12 and 13 years respectively), and consequently filed present Constitutional petition before the High Court to take action against the mother---Held, that present case was purely within the jurisdiction of the Guardian Judge, and the High Court had no jurisdiction except for procuring recovery of minors through the police---Mother along with minors was present before the Court, and the minors pleaded to the court that they did not want to meet their father inasmuch as he tortured and abused them as well as their mother---For getting custody of minors the appropriate legal course open to the father was under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890---Father had voluntarily stopped meeting the minors by making a statement before the Guardian Judge that he was withdrawing from the court meetings as his daughter had attained age of majority, and he did not want her to come to court---Minors had been produced before the Court, and they did not want to have any connections with their father, therefore, present Constitutional petition did not have any merits---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Petitioner in person. Behzad Ali Umrani for Respondent No.3 along with Respondent No.3 and minors in person. Date of hearing: 29th August , 2014.

Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioner prays for following reliefs:--- (1) To direct respondent No.1, learned Family Judge No.V, Hyderabad to take action against the respondent No.3 who has been violating the order of the said Court frequently. (2) To direct respondent No.2 to take action against the respondent No.3 if she fails to arrange the meeting of children with the petitioner. 2. To controvert the aforesaid petition, Mst. Huma, respondent No.3 has filed objections to the same through her counsel Mr. Behzad Ali Umrani advocate, wherein she has stated that due to bad behavior of the petitioner meted out her as well as to her children the respondent No.3 got Khula from the petitioner on 22-12-2013 before Family Judge No.9, Hyderabad in Family Suit No.27/2003. The respondent No.3, further states that the petitioner filed Guardianship Application No.60/2007 before the learned Family Judge, Hyderabad and same was dismissed by the Family Judge but only meeting was allowed. The respondent No.3 brought the minors before the Family Judge on every date of meeting, however, the petitioner demonstrated behavior of mentally ill person and instead of giving love and affection to the minor children, the petitioner used filthy language with the minors as well as with the respondent No.3 and extended threats to the respondent No.3 that he would snatch the minors and in case of failure, would commit their murder on which respondent No.3 also made a complaint to the respondent No.1 the SHO police station City, Hyderabad. A photostat copy of which is available as Annexure-4 to the objections. The respondent No.3 further states that the petitioner never provided with minors with any maintenance of any other necessity of life. The respondent No.3 while denying the contents of the petition stated that on 19-3-2011 the petitioner filed an application with the learned Guardian and Wards Judge for cancellation of the meeting with the minors, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:--- "I state in writing that I will not have any legal and religious relation with those children and this lady may not use my name with names of the children. From today, I have no relation with them. Such statement in writing, I am producing in the Court. My filed suit may be cancelled and they cannot file any claim against me." 3. Thereafter, the petitioner kept on meeting the minors even after dismissal of the aforesaid Guardianship Application No.60/2007 as the respondent No.3 allowed the petitioner to meeting with the minors. However, on 8-2-2014, petitioner filed statement stating therein that "petitioner does not want to continue the meeting as his daughter has become major due to her age petitioner does not want to her daughter to come into the Court so petitioner withdraw conduct the meeting, all the expenses will be given to the minors" and thereafter the petitioner voluntarily stopped meeting the children, the learned respondent No.1 the Guardian and Wards Judge also passed an order thereon. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this case is purely within the jurisdiction of Guardian and Wards Judge and this Court has no jurisdiction except for procuring recovery of the children through the police before this Court inasmuch the petitioner has alleged in the petition that the respondent No.3 has taken away the minors and is not permitting the petitioner to meet them and the petitioner being the father of the children have got every right to meeting them. Today the respondent No.3 is present along with minors namely baby Haram aged about 13 years and Master Muhammad Taha who appears to be 12 years of age. The minors plead to the Court that they did not want to meet the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner tortures and hurls a volley of abuses to them as well as to their mother the respondent No.3. For getting custody of minors the appropriate legal course open to the petitioner was under the provision of Guardians and Wards Act. However, the case before the learned Guardians and Wards Court has concluded in the aforesaid terms on the request of petitioner himself, the respondent No.3 as well as the minors do not want to have any connections with the petitioner. The minors have been produced before the Court, therefore, I see no merits in this constitutional petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Above are the reasons of short order dated 29-8-2014. MWA/J-16/Sindh Petition dismisse

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.