NASIR ABBAS Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH

ORDER

The bailiff has produced the alleged detenue Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar after her recovery from the house of her father Mian Muhammad Bakhsh/respondent No. l and has also submitted his report, which has been placed on record.

2. The detenue was weeping when she entered the court‑room. She was made to understand that she was free ' to make any statement without any pressure from any side. She then deposed that she was willingly residing in the house of her father. She also added that her father i.e., respondent No. l or her brothers i.e., respondents Nos.2 to 4 had never detained her in their house, nor there was any restraint on her movement. She expressed her willingness to reside with her father in her parents house. She denied that she was the wife of petitioner by adding that she was not married with him, nor she ever lived with him. The father of the alleged detenue Mian Muhammad Buksh/respondent No.l is present in Court and has contended that he did not know Nasir Abbas petitioner nor the detenue Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar was ever married with him.

3. On the contrary, the petitioner, who is also present in Court has submitted that he was the husband of the detenue Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar vide Nikah deed placed at page 10 of this file. The learned counsel for the petitioner added that the detenue was not free to give statement as she was allegedly under the influence of her father and mother. A request was made that she should be given some time to compose herself. After considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detenue was repeatedly asked to compose herself and make statement of her choice. Upon this, the detenue got composed and stopped weeping while before that she was weeping bitterly. After composing herself, she stated that she was never married with the petitioner nor she was his wife and that she would like to go with her father. This repeated statement of the detenue shows that she was wrongly shown as a detenue in the house of her father by moving this petition apparently with some ulterior motive in order to humiliate her and her family. If at all there is any Nikah between petitioner and the detenue and he wanted her to live with him as his wife, the right legal remedy for him was else where, but habeas petition was hardly a remedy under the given situation. The petition being totally misconceived is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) which shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Cashier of this Court within seven days, failing which it shall be recovered from him as fine and paid td respondent No. l i.e., father of the alleged detenue.

4. The detenue is set at liberty to accompany her father according to her option.

5. Disposed of.

N.H.Q./N‑161/L

Petition dismissed.