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: 21‑R of 1976, decided on 5th March 1976.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated the 2nd of February 1976, in R. F. A. No. 6 of 1975).
------S. 25‑Custody of minors-‑‑Parties, impleading of ‑‑‑Wife on being divorced by husband applying to Family, Court for custody of her minor sons living with father--‑Husband s 'attendance before Family Court not secured‑‑Petitioner (uncle of minors) applying for being impleaded as a party to proceeding‑‑Parents of minors being alive and minors not in petitioner s custody. Family Court, held, rightly rejected petitioner s prayer ‑--‑No question of law, far less of any public importance, being involved, petition dismissed.‑[Custody of minors].
Muhammad Rafiq Awan Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing 15th March 1976.
The petitioner is a paternal uncle of the four minors involved in the case whose ages range from nine years downwards, and he has been aggrieved by an order of a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court refusing to interfere an order of the Family Court dismissing his application for impleadment as a party.
It appears that respondent No. 1 Mst. Gul Naz, mother of the minors had applied before the Family Court Abbottbad, for the custody of her children said to be living with their father respondent No. 2 Muhammad Riaz. .
Respondent No. 2 had earlier divorced respondent No. 1. The atten dance of respondent No. 2 could not be secured before the Family Court. The petitioner on the 22nd of July 1975, applied to the Family Court for being impleaded as a party. Respondent No. 1 contested this application. Admittedly the minors are not in the custody of the petitioner. The parents of the minors are alive. In these circumstances the petitioner's application was rejected by Family Court. The learned Singles Judge rightly refused to interfere with this order of the family Court.
There is no question of law far less of any public importance involved in the case. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer