Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 4317 2025 SLD 4317 = 2025 CLC 1148
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 89 of 2025, decided on 3rd January, 2025.
Before Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J
Rana Maqsood ul Haq for Petitioner. Barrister Hassan Khalid Ranjha, Additional Advocate General for official
Respondents. H.M. Zeeshan Khan for
Respondent No. 3.

HAMNA FAHAD ---Petitioner

VERSUS

CAPITAL CITY POLICE OFFICER, LAHORE and 3 others ---Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199(1)(b)(i)

Law: Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Section: VII,7,25

Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199(1)(b)(i)---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Ss.7 & 25---Habeas corpus, writ of---Scope---Recovery of minor from the custody of father temporarily given to him by the Guardian Judge---Petitioner (mother) instead of availing alternate remedy by way of seeking custody of the minor from the Guardian Court opted to approach High Court in the writ of habeas corpus---Contention of respondent (father) was that High Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order as alternate remedy had been availed before the Guardian Judge, who while taking cognizance of the matter had passed order of interim custody of minor in favour of the respondent---Validity---High Court in constitutional jurisdiction although has jurisdiction to handover temporary custody to anyone of the parents by directing them to seek remedy before the Guardian Court, yet as the matter was already pending before the Guardian Court, High Court had not declared that the minors had been snatched forcibly by any of the parent from the other or custody of said parent as illegal and improper which required determination of disputed facts not permissible in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, lest it might prejudice rights of the parties before the Guardian Court where proceedings for custody of minors were pending---Habeas corpus proceedings by its very nature and purport are summary in character and neither controversies were tried nor entire evidence was recorded under ordinary substantive and procedural laws under civil and criminal jurisdiction and such jurisdiction being extraordinary in its very nature should be sparingly used because the plenary jurisdiction in the matter rests under other laws in other forums of special jurisdiction who should normally be allowed to exercise it in accordance with law---High Court refrained itself from passing any order relating to custody of minors, however, in the interest of justice, in order to further regulate the proceedings in the matter certain observations were recorded which the parties were bound to observe---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.Gull Arzoo v. Station House Officer…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register