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.
Writ Petition No.529 of 1983, decided on 16th September, 1983.
---Ss. 10 & 11--Custody of abductee, question of--Offences of abduction and Zina allegedly committed in respect of girl--Safer to give such girl in custody of father in preference to husband whose claim to custody controverted--Order of Additional Sessions Judge giving custody of abductee to father instead of petitioner whom woman acknowledging to be her husband, held, not improper, in circumstances.
Shahida Parveen v. District Judge , Sialkot and another; P L D 1980 Lah. 7 ref.
Taj Muhammad Khan Langha for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 16th September, 1983
This writ petition relates to the custody of the abductee in a case of offence under Ordinance V11 of 1979. The trial Court gave the custody to the A.S.I. directed him to deliver the custody of the girl to the husband if he could show a genuine Nikahnama. This order was challenged in revision in the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the girl be sent to Darulaman. He later directed that the girl be produced before the Magistrate who should direct that the girl be handed over to her father. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the case of Shahida Parveen v. District Judge, Sialkot and another P L D 1980 Lah. 7 in coming to the conclusion that in the circumstances of the case the custody of the girl should be delivered to the father. The present writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned counsel contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in giving the custody to the father instead of the present petitioner whom the woman acknowledged to be her husband.
2. The offence is said to have been committed in respect of the girl in question. Under these circumstances it is safe to give the custody to the father in preference to the husband whose claim to the custody is controverted. The orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, are not improper. His reliance on the case of Shahida Parveen v. District Judge, Sialkot and another P L D 1980 Lah. 7 is not misplaced. Needless to say that the order does not suffer from want of jurisdiction. There is no justification for interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
S.G.D. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer