Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

Section: -S. 491

 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 491---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Ss.7 & 9---Habeas Corpus proceedings---Scope---Custody of minor---Regulating meeting with minor---Petitioner was real father of minor and step sister of minor was claiming custody---During Habeas Corpus proceedings under S. 491, Cr.P.C., before Additional Sessions Judge, petitioner consented to visitation rights to respondent---On application filed by respondent, Additional Sessions Judge prepared schedule for respondent to meet the minor-- Validity---Petitioner's custody was lawful and proper, as he was minor's real father and natural guardian duly looking after him, including his studies---Respondent was step sister of minor who was married and living with her family---It was in the minor's welfare that his custody should remain with his father, i.e. the petitioner---Though Additional Sessions Judge dismissed application of respondent but directed petitioner to provide her an opportunity to meet the minor twice or thrice a month---Additional Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction while making such a direction---Determination of visitation rights fe l in the exclusive domain of Guardian Court---Order of Additional Sessions Judge enforcing meetings with minor was without jurisdiction and such application of respondent was not competent and a l proceedings based on such order were unlawful-- Respondent could not take benefit of petitioner's conceding statement that he made in earlier proceedings---When basic order was devoid of legal authority and void, the entire superstructure raised thereon would co lapse---High Court set aside the orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge enforcing meeting schedule of respondent with minor-- Constitutional petition was a lowed accordingly. 

Muhammad Ajmal Khan v. Lt.-Col. Muhammad Shafaat and others PLD 1976 Lah. 396; Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O'Brien (1923) AC 603; Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling and others AIR 1973 SC 2684; Cox v. Hakes, [1890] UKLawRpAC 36; [1890] 15 A.C.; Government of West Pakistan and another v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri PLD 1969 SC 14; R v. Greenhil, (1836) 4 A & E 624; Queen v. Clarke (1857) 7 EL & BL 186: 119, ER 1217; Howarth v. Northcott, (1965) 152 Conn. 460, 208 A.2d 540; Syed Saleemuddin v. Dr. Rukhsana and others (2001) 5 SCC 247; Tejaswini Gaud and others v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others AIR 2019 SC 2318; Muhammad Javed Umrao v. Uzma Vahid 1988 SCMR 1891; Nisar Muhammad and another v. Sultan Zari PLD 1997 SC 852; Ch. Noor Hussain v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 796; Naziha Ghazali v. The State and another 2001 SCMR 1782; Mst. Nadia Perveen v. Mst. Almas Noreen and others PLD 2012 SC 758; Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and others PLD 1958 SC 104; Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami and others 2007 SCMR 818; Moulana Atta-ur-Rehman v. Al-Hajj Sardar Umar Farooq and others PLD 2008 SC 663; Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan and others PLD 2022 SC 119 and Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2022 SC 574 rel.

 Sardar Waseem Ahmad Mokal for Petitioner.