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 No. 1351 of 1983, decided on 5th August, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 619 of 1983).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Ss. 12 & 47‑‑West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 17‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑Revision before High Court against order granting custody of children by Guardian Judge‑‑Competency of‑‑Guardian judge granting custody of children‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that no revision lay against order of Additional District Judge to High Court in such proceedings, repelled on strength of a decision of Lahore High Court which had been disapproved by Supreme Court‑‑Submission prima facie being correct, leave to appeal granted.
Parveen v. Muhammad Ashar P L D 1975 Lah. 334 and Sakhawat Ali and another v. Mst. Shui Khelay P L D 1981 S C 454 ref.
A.W. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing: 5th August, 1984.
The dispute in this case is with regard to the custody of the minor children of the parties herein.
The learned Guardian Judge granted the custody of the children to the father Ihsan‑ur‑Rehman, the petitioner herein. The appeal of the mother, Mst. Najma Parveen, respondent herein, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 17‑3‑1983, whereupon she filed a revision before the High Court. The petitioner herein raised an objection before the High Court that no revision lay against the order of the Additional District Judge to the High Court in these proceedings. This contention was rejected on the authority of a decision of the Lahore High Court entitled Parveen v. Muhammad Ashar P L D 1975 Lah. 334. The learned Judge, therefore, proceeded to hear the petition on merits and although he upheld the orders of the Guardian Judge and the learned Additional District Judge that the father was entitled to the custody of the schildren, he, however, proceeded to direct that during the summer vacation and Eid Holidays the custody of the minors should be transferred to the mother (respondent herein). The father feeling aggrieved by‑ this direction has moved this petition for leave to appeal.
Mr. A.W. Butt, in support of this petition, has inter alia, contended that the judgment of the High Court, on which the learned Judge relied for holding that the revision was competent viz. Parveen v. Muhammad Ashar P L D 1975 Lah. 334 had been disapproved by this Court in Sakhawat Ali and another v. Mst. Shui Khelay P L D 1981 S C 454. This submission, prima‑facie, appears to be correct. Leave is, accordingly, granted.
Security for costs of the respondent shall be furnished in the sum of Rs. 1,000.
The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any, and put up for hearing in the month of October, 1984, as this is a family matter.
The operation of the impugned order of the High Court shall in the meanwhile, remain suspended.
M.I Leave granted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer