Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: Hammad Hussain and Muhammad Irfan Khan filed Shariat Petitions No. 8/I and 9/I of 2020, challenging the constitutionality of Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The petitioners argued that these provisions are anti-people, inhuman, and un-Islamic, claiming that they deprive the natural guardian (the father) of custody of the minor without due consideration of Islamic principles. They sought a judicial interpretation consistent with Islamic law and legislation reflecting this interpretation. ----Issues: 1) Whether Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, are contrary to Islamic law. ---2) Whether the current application of these sections unjustly deprives fathers of their natural guardianship rights under Islamic principles. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed both petitions in limine, providing the following reasons: Previous Examination by the Council of Islamic Ideology: The court noted that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, had been previously reviewed by the Council of Islamic Ideology in 1970. The Council found the Act, with the exception of Sections 19(a) and 39(j), to be in accordance with Islamic injunctions. This view was concurred by the Federal Shariat Court in 1985. Previous Judicial Precedents: The court referred to several previous cases, including a review petition in 1994 and another Shariat Petition in 2008, where similar challenges to the Guardians and Wards Act were dismissed. In these cases, the court upheld the Act's provisions as consistent with Islamic principles. Mandate of the Court: The court emphasized that its mandate, under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Pakistan, is to determine whether a law is repugnant to Islamic injunctions. It is not within the court's purview to answer hypothetical or "unanswered questions" as posed by the petitioners. Welfare of the Minor: The court highlighted that the primary consideration under Section 25 of the Act is the welfare of the minor, which aligns with Islamic jurisprudence. The principle that a father is the natural guardian is subject to the welfare of the child, and any custody decisions must prioritize the child's best interests. Behavior of the Petitioners: The court expressed concern over the language used by the petitioners, noting that they had made derogatory remarks against women and the judiciary. The court found this behavior inappropriate and warned the petitioners to be more cautious in the future. Based on these considerations, the court found the petitions to be without merit and dismissed them in limine. ----Citations/Precedents: Council of Islamic Ideology Review (1970) S.S.M. No.522/1985: Federal Shariat Court's concurrence with the Council of Islamic Ideology's findings. Review Shariat Petition No.2/I of 1994: Dismissed in-limine by the Federal Shariat Court. Shariat Petition No. 3/L of 2008 (PLJ 2014 FSC 99): Dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court, upholding Sections 7, 17, and 27 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 1974 SCMR 305 (Rahimullah Choudhury vs. Mrs. Syeda Helali Begum & others): The welfare of the minor as the paramount consideration in custody cases. This judgment reinforces the principle that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, consistent with both the Guardians and Wards Act and Islamic jurisprudence.

Summary: Service Matter: Against Order dated 14-01-2020 (Foreign party of FIA Employees)

Summary: Catching hold of the deceased.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 376, 365 & 511---Rape, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly andwrongfully confine person, attempt to commit offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Enmity with accused---Non-production of victim---Contradictorystatements---Un-natural conduct of witnesses---Delay in producing clothes of victimto police---Effect---Prosecution case against accused was that he abducted thedaughter of complainant when she reached near his house; took her to his house;tore her clothes with intention to commit rape but the mother of victim while passingthrough the street saw the victim being abducted; which attracted two persons andthe accused fled away from the spot---Admittedly, complainant party had enmitywith the accused---No medico legal examination of the victim was produced whichcould have shown marks of dragging or violence on her body---Victim, although deafand dumb, was not produced in the witness box---Statements of eye-witnesses werecontradictory---Accused, despite being empty handed, was not apprehended by thecomplainant party even though it consisted of three adult members---Torn 'qameez'of the victim was produced before the police after seventeen days of the occurrence---Admittedly, accused and his brother lived in the house where the occurrence tookplace and it was not probable that the accused would attempt to commit rape wherehis family and family of his brother was living---Prosecution had failed to prove itscase against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction, wasallowed, in circumstances.(b) Criminal trial-------Witness---Related witness---Scope---Statement of related eye-witness can berelied upon to decide a case but such statement is required to be corroborated byindependent evidence and it should be confidence inspiring and trustworthy.(c) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Scope---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in theprosecution case is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

Summary: The petitioners challenged the legality of the judgment, which accepted the appeal of respondent No.1, setting aside the order and remanding the case to the trial court for a fresh decision after recording the evidence of both parties. The case originated from a suit for pre-emption filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners concerning a 1-Kanal land on Pakpattan Road, Arifwala. The trial court had initially accepted the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejecting the plaint. However, the appellate court overturned this decision, remanding the case for a fresh decision. The judgment details the legal proceedings, emphasizing the petitioners' argument that respondent No.1's right of pre-emption had extinguished due to a prior decree in favor of the petitioners in a specific performance suit related to the same land. Additionally, the respondent's pre-emptory suit was criticized for lacking essential information, such as witnesses of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad, as required by law. The court ultimately allowed the civil revision.