2024 C L C 1033
[Sindh]
Before Mohammad Abdur Rahman, J
OMER BIN MEHMOOD----Petitioner
Versus
COURT OF IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SOUTH, KARACHI and 3 others----Respondents
C.Ps. Nos.S-922 and S-923 of 2019, decided on 30th August, 2023.
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S. 14(1)---Family Courts Rules, 1965, R.22 (1) & proviso---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Appeal---Condonation of delay---Application under S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908---Maintainability---Application under S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 technically is not applicable to appeal maintained under R.22(1) of Family Courts Rules, 1965 read with S.14(1) of Family Court Act, 1964---When such application is placed before Appellate Court it should not be dismissed on such technical ground of having been filed under incorrect provision of law and for all intents and purposes must be treated as an application filed under the proviso to R.22(1) of Family Courts Rules and adjudicated as against the same criteria as would be applied to application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908, on "sufficient cause".
Muhammad Aslam v. Zainab Bibi 1990 CLC 934; Jameela Begum v. Additional District Judge 2005 MLD 376; Anar Mamana v. Misal Gul PLD 2005 Pesh 194; Rasheed Ahmed v. Shamshad Begum 2007 CLC 656; Ali Muhammad and another v. Fazal Hussain and others 1983 SCMR 1239; Masserat Bibi v. Muhammad Bashir 1996 MLD 692; Muhammad Maqsood v. Kousar Nisar 2000 YLR 2698; Muhammad Arshad Khan v. Muhammad Kaleem Khan PLD 2007 SC AJK 14 and 1995 SCMR 1419 rel.
(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
----S. 12---Exclusion of time for obtaining certified copy---Principle---If a party does not pay costs on application for certified copy of order to be assailed, time does not stop.
(c) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)---
----S. 25---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Guardianship of minor---Welfare of minor---Inability to maintain minor---Petitioner was father of minor son whereas respondents were relatives of mother of the minor who had adopted the minor---Petitioner was aggrieved of judgment passed by Family Court appointing respondents as guardians of the minor---Validity---Whatever the relationship could have been with the mother of the minor, petitioner / father had abandoned the minor at the time of his birth---Petitioner / father had complete lack of involvement, either financially or emotionally, with the child who had special needs---Family Court had rightly recorded findings that petitioner / father was an unfit person to be a guardian of minor and that such role was best assumed by respondents---High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Family Court appointing respondents as guardians as there was no illegality or infirmity in it---Constitutional petitions dismissed, in circumstances.
Zahoor Ahmad v. Mst. Rukhsana Kausar 2000 SCMR 707 and Mst. Rasheedan Bibi v. Additional District Judge and 2 others 2012 CLC 784 ref.
Khan Muhammad v. Mst. Surayya Bibi 2008 SCMR 480; Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock 2004 SCM 1839; Mst. Shahista Naz v. Muhammad Naeem Ahmed 2004 SCMR 990; Mst Khalida Parveen v. Muhammad Sultan Mehmood PLD 2004 SC 1; Badruddin Roshan v. Mst Razia Sultana 2002 SCMR 371; Firdous Iqbal v. Shifaat Ali 2000 SCMR 838; Zahoor Ahmed v. Rukhsana Kausar 2000 SCMR 707; Rubia Jilani v. Zahoor Akhtar Raja 1999 SCMR 1834; Nighat Firdous v. Khadim Hussain 1998 SCMR 1593; Zafar Iqbal v. Rehmat Jan 1994 SCMR 339 and Nasir Raza v. Additional District Judge, Jhelum 2018 SCMR 590 rel.
Muhammad Altaf for Petitioner (in C.P. No.922 of 2019).
Nemo. for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. No.922 of 2019).
Arshad Tayebaly and Farjad Ali Khan for Respondent No.2 (in C.P. No.922 of 2019).
Arshad Tayebay and Farjad Ali Khan Respondent No.3 (in C.P. No.922 of 2019).
Nemo for Respondent No.4. (in C.P. No.922 of 2019).
Muhammad Altaf for Petitioner (in C.P. No.923 of 2019).
Nemo for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. No.923 of 2019).
Arshad Tayebaly and Farjad Ali Khan for Respondent No.2 (in C.P. No.923 of 2019).
Arshad Tayebaly and Farjad Ali Khan for Respondent No.2 (in C.P. No.923 of 2019).
Nemo for Respondent No.3 (in C.P. No.923 of 2019).
No comments:
Post a Comment