Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged an interim order passed by the Family Court (East), Islamabad, fixing Rs.6,000 per month as interim maintenance for each of his two minor children. The petitioner claimed he was unable to pay the amount due to his limited income as a driver, earning Rs.10,000 per month. The respondent, his estranged wife, filed the suit for recovery of maintenance and dower, stating that she had custody of the minors and was facing financial difficulties. -----Issues: 1- Whether the interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court was excessive or unjustifiable. -----2- Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an interim maintenance order under Section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. -----3- Whether the Family Court acted within its jurisdiction in passing the interim maintenance order. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Legality of Interim Maintenance: The court held that interim maintenance orders are issued under Section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which empowers the Family Court to provide financial relief to minors during the pendency of proceedings. The amount of Rs.6,000 per child was deemed reasonable considering current economic conditions and inflation. --Maintainability of Writ Petition: Section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act bars appeals or revisions against interim orders. Writ petitions against such orders are maintainable only if the order is coram non judice, wholly without jurisdiction, or mala fide. The petitioner failed to establish any such grounds. Disputes regarding the quantum of maintenance involve factual controversies, which require recording evidence and cannot be addressed in writ jurisdiction. --Father’s Legal and Moral Obligation: The court reiterated that the father is legally and morally obligated to maintain his minor children, emphasizing their right to financial support as a natural and legal entitlement. The writ petition was dismissed in limine, as the interim maintenance order did not warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction. -----Citations/Precedents: Syeda Farhat Jehan v. Syed Iqbal Hussain Rizvi (2010 YLR 3275): Maintenance is a natural right of minors; fathers cannot neglect their legal duty. Munir Alam v. Civil Judge, Family Court, Lahore (2009 CLC 442): Writ petitions against interim maintenance orders are discouraged. Ali Adnan Dar v. Judge, Family Court (PLD 2016 Lahore 873): Interim maintenance orders are non-appealable and writ petitions are permissible only under extraordinary circumstances. Abrar Hussain v. Mehwish Rana (PLD 2012 Lahore 420): Interim maintenance orders serve the welfare of minors and cannot be delayed or avoided through writ challenges. Shahid Ali Gil v. Mst. Ruqayya Bano (2015 MLD 265): The quantum of interim maintenance is within the discretion of the Family Court and does not warrant interference unless wholly without jurisdiction.

Summary: Bail granted-----Background: The petitioner sought post-arrest bail on medical grounds after being charged in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference for allegedly committing corrupt practices as a director of a housing scheme. The petitioner, along with co-accused, was accused of launching an unapproved housing scheme, collecting substantial amounts from the public, and misappropriating funds. NAB opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the risk of flight. -----Issues: 1- Can bail be granted on medical grounds despite the gravity of the charges against the petitioner? ----2- Does the petitioner’s health condition warrant treatment outside jail facilities? ----3- Does the petitioner’s alleged involvement in corrupt practices justify continued detention? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Grant of Bail on Medical Grounds: The Court noted that the petitioner was suffering from serious cardiac ailments, including triple vessel disease, unstable angina, and other complications requiring immediate angioplasty. The petitioner’s condition, as confirmed by medical reports, could not be adequately managed within the jail premises, and his continued detention posed a risk to his life. --Conditions for Bail: The Court granted bail subject to stringent conditions to prevent flight risk: Furnishing bail bonds worth Rs. 1,00,00,000/- with two sureties of the same amount. Surrendering his passport to the Accountability Court. Ensuring compliance with directives to address financial claims against him. --Legal Precedents: The Court relied on consistent judicial precedent that recognized the need for bail when the accused’s health could not be adequately treated in custody. --Risk Management: The petitioner’s inclusion in the Exit Control List and restrictions on his financial activities ensured accountability and minimized the risk of absconding. The petition was allowed, and bail was granted under the specified conditions, balancing the petitioner’s medical needs with accountability for the charges. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Saeed Mehdi vs. The State (2002 SCMR 282) Bail was granted to a petitioner requiring specialized medical treatment unavailable in custody. Manzoor Ahmad Watto vs. The State (2000 SCMR 107) Bail is justified for ailments requiring specialized treatment outside jail. Firdous Paul vs. The State (2004 SCMR 15) Severe cardiac conditions and the risk of sudden death supported granting bail. Abdullah Hamid Mehmood vs. The State (PLD 2006 Karachi 393) Detention was deemed hazardous for the health of a seriously ill accused. Syed Muhammad Makhdoom Gillani vs. The State (W.P. No. 2799/2009) Co-accused in the same reference was granted bail to address claims of affected parties, with similar restrictive conditions.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Criminal Appeal U/S. 410, Cr.P.C. offence U/S 302,324,337 F (i) 34 PPC Benefit of doubt. Two PWs one Matiullah (PW4) and wife of deceased PW5 stated that blood was oozing from his head but according to medical report Ex:PM no injury has been shown on the head. Similarly PW2 FazalRehman stated spade blow on the head but I.O appeared as PW16 who visited the spot but he did not recovered blood stained earth from the place of deceased. This non-existence of injury on the head and non-recovery of blood at the venue of crime casts serious doubts and authenticity of prosecution case. Appeal allowed, Judgment/conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background:Altaf, the petitioner, was arrested and charged with possessing a large quantity of heroin. During a police search of his home, heroin weighing 3 kilograms and 830 grams was found. Following his arrest, Altaf filed several bail applications, all of which were denied by the lower courts and the Shariat Court. He subsequently filed a revision petition in the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.----Issues:Whether the lower courts and the Shariat Court erred in denying bail to the petitioner.Whether the evidence and circumstances justify granting bail to the petitioner.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court dismissed the revision petition, stating:The search and recovery of heroin were conducted legally, with proper warrants and procedures.The petitioner was found with a substantial quantity of heroin, confirmed by chemical analysis.The lower courts and the Shariat Court correctly applied the law in denying bail, given the severity of the charges under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985.The offense falls within the prohibitory clause, which generally does not favor granting bail.The petitioner failed to present any new grounds or evidence that would justify bail.----Citations/Precedents:Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985: Outline the severe penalties for offenses involving significant quantities of heroin.Section 103, Cr.P.C.: Pertains to the procedures for search and seizure, which were argued to have been violated but found to be properly followed in this case.

Summary: Summary pending