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 Leave to Appeal No. 107/R of 1984, decided on 10th April, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 20th March, 1984, W. P. 1103/84),
‑‑ Art. 185 (3)‑Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Ss. 9 & 25‑Courts below coming to finding as to ordinary place of residence of child and in doing so they neither ignoring any evidence nor taking any extraneous matter into consideration and coming to conclusion that interest of minor may be best served if she remained in custody of her mother‑No reason shown to differ from findings of Courts below‑Leave to appeal refused.
Kokab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing :10th April, 1984.
‑This petition is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 1103 of 1984 vide impugned judgment, dated 20th March, 1984.
2. The facts for the disposal of this petition are that Mst. Irshad 3egum was married to Muhammad Iqbal on 24‑3‑1976. Out of this wedlock three children were born eldest being Memoona Iqbal. The relations between the parties became strained which ultimately resulted in divorce on 14‑10‑1981. At that time two minor children were living with Mst. Irshad Begum while Memoona Iqbal, the eldest child, was residing with her paternal‑aunt at Alipur Chattha, District Gujranwala. Mst. Irshad Begum ought custody of Memoona Iqbal on the ground that she being mother was entitled to the custody of her minor child Memoona Iqbal. The petition was contested by the petitioner Muhammad lqbal stating that the child was living with her paternal‑aunt, was being looked after properly and was also admitted to school there. The jurisdiction of the Court was also challenged on the ground that the ordinary residence of the minor was at Gujranwala and, therefore, the Guardian Judge, Sargodha had no territorial jurisdiction to go into the question of the custody of the child m view of section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issue‑
(1) Whether the application has not been moved by the petitioner nor it has been signed, if so what is its effect O. P. D.
(2) Whether this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this petition O. P. D.
(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover the custody of minor O. P. D.
All the aforementioned issues were found in favour of Mst. Irshad Begum Respondent by the learned Guardian Judge vide his order, dated 8‑12‑1983.
3. Muhammad Iqbal petitioner then filed an appeal before the learn District Judge, sargodha who dismissed the same vide judgment, dated 4‑3‑1984 and thereafter the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court praying that orders of the two Courts below be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The learned High ' court dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. But we find that all the courts below have come to the finding that the ordinary place of residence of the child was Bhalwal and in coming to this finding they have neither ignored any evidence nor have taken any extraneous matter into consideration. As regards the welfare of the child, all the Courts have come to the conclusion that interest of the minor may be best served if she remained in custody of her mother Mst. Irshad Begum. We find no reason to differ on this finding of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mother Mst. Irshad Begum being a person of no means would not be able to look after the child Memoona lqbal. This argument has no force as the other two children are already living with their mother and no grievance made regarding their welfare. It is in the interest of all the parties that the children should live together with their mother Mst. Irshad Begum. We find no merit in this petition which is consequently, dismissed.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer