MST. SHAHNAZ GHULAM RASOOL versus MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL AHMAD SIDDIQUI
Section 12 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the custody of minor words religion, judicial observations regarding the nature of the profession of the minor involuntary son were over seven years old and The trial court removed him from the custody of the mother and handed him over to the father, which was upheld by the lower appellate court's decision passed by the Trail Court, used in section 17 of the Parents and Wards Act, 1890, Should be broadly interpreted and not confined to any community and all sects in the decision to detain a minor. No matter what sect the father belonged to and what sect his mother belonged to, the trial court largely dealt with all the questions which the High Court disagreed with. Despite the Guardian judge's observation that the mother was running a tuition center and a domestic beauty parlor, it was not conducive to the modest high. The court directed the trial court to abstain from judicial observations about professions that were permitted by law. In accepting the request for juvenile detention, the following two courts, after appreciating the evidence, gave sufficient reasons and appeared before the Trial Court and stated clearly that their father loved them. ? And he also said that his grandmother also loved him. In the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court refused to interfere with the factual facts under which the two courts were dismissed from the petition.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
