Pakistan Case Law
1981 SCMR 301

Mst. AISHA BIBI vs NAZIR AND 2 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1981 SCMR 301
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No. 538 of 1980 r. M. No. 738/H of 1980
Date1980-10-28
Judge(s)Anwarul Haq; G. J., Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus regarding the custody of a young girl, Mst. Zahida Perveen. The petitioner, the maternal grandmother of the girl, alleged that the girl was being detained by her paternal uncle. The High Court had previously dismissed a similar petition, relying on the girl's statement that she wished to reside with her paternal uncle, and subsequently dismissed a second petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Guardian Court for legal guardianship. The core legal question was whether habeas corpus proceedings are an appropriate remedy for resolving a custody dispute between relatives when there is no evidence of illegal or forcible detention. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to interfere, affirming that the dispute was essentially a matter of custody to be resolved by the Guardian Court, rather than through extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that habeas corpus is not the proper forum for determining custody disputes where no forcible detention is established.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a writ of habeas corpus an appropriate remedy for resolving a custody dispute between relatives?
  • Can a court direct a party to seek relief from a Guardian Court instead of issuing a writ of habeas corpus in a custody matter?
  • Does the absence of forcible detention preclude the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus?
habeas corpuscustody of minorwrit jurisdictionguardian courtillegal detention

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAQ, C.- J. The dispute in this case concerns the custody of a young girl, named Zahida Perveen, aged about 18 years. Both her parents are dead, and she had been living with the petitioner, who is her maternal grandmother. She had gone to the house of her paternal uncle, respondent Muhammad Ramzan to attend the funeral of her father, but did not return to the house of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner thereupon commenced habeas corpus proceedings against the respondents, but the same were dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court on 5-3-1980 on the basis of the statement made by the girl that she would like to live with her paternal uncle, who was also her guardian under the Muslim law. The petitioner was apparently not satisfied with this order, and instituted a second habeas corpus petition on the allegation that Mst. Zahida Parven had been coerced on the earlier occasion to make a statement in favour of the respondents. After considering the matter afresh, and recording statement of Mst. Zahida Parven, the High Court has once again refused to interfere, and has directed, by its order dated the 20th of September, 1980, that the petitioner may, if so advised, move the Guardian Court for being appointed as the legal guardian of the minor. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal.

3. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is essentially regarding the, custody of the girl, and no question of any forcible detention arises. The petitioner is the maternal grandmother of Mst. Zahida Parveen, whereas respondent Muhammad Ramzan is he A paternal uncle. The learned Judge in the High Court appears to us to right in thinking that this was essentially a matter for the Guardian Judge to resolve, and no justification was made out for issuing a direction in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus.

Cited by 15 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.