Mst. MUSARRAT PARVEEN vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM
This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor child, Mst. Naurin Akhtar, who was currently in the custody of the respondent-father, Muhammad Akram. The core legal question was whether the father's detention of the child was unlawful, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The respondent contended that he had divorced the petitioner due to her alleged illicit relations with another man, providing evidence of letters and visa applications suggesting the petitioner intended to remove the child from Pakistan. The Court observed that the father's apprehension regarding the child's removal was not baseless. Holding that the father's custody of his own child could not be deemed unlawful or illegal, the Court declined to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court affirmed that the child should remain with the father and directed the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies regarding custody through the competent Guardian Judge, thereby establishing that habeas corpus is not the appropriate mechanism for resolving custody disputes where the father's possession is not illegal.
- Is a writ of habeas corpus the appropriate remedy for a mother to seek custody of a minor child from the father?
- Can a father's custody of his own child be considered unlawful or illegal in the context of a habeas corpus petition?
- What is the proper forum for a parent to seek custody of a child when habeas corpus is denied?
ORDER
When the case was called for hearing, Mst. Musarrat Parveen petitioner entered appearance alongwith one Muhammad Jamil who was carrying Mst. Naurin Akhtar (child) the alleged detenu.
Muhammad Akram respondent/father of the child, stated that he had divorced his were, the petitioner, before the institution of this petition as she was having illicit relations with Muhammad Jamil, present in the Court. He has shown me the letters written by Mst. Musarat Parveen petitioner/were in proof of her love affairs with Jamil. He has also shown me the photostat copy of an application moved by Muhammad Jamil for U.S.A. Visa in which he has shown Mst. Musarrat Parveen petitioner as his were and Mst. Naurin Akhtar, the detenu child as his daughter.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances the apprehension of respondent/father that the child will be removed from Pakistan does not seem to be baseless. The child was with her father/petitioner at the time of filing of this application. On 22-10-1990 the custody of the child was given to the petitioner/mother temporarily for the purposes of reconciliation, which by now has failed. Mst.
Musarrat Parveen, the petitioner has produced the child in the Court as directed in order, dated 22- 10-1990. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I do not desire to give any direction in the nature of habeas corpus. The respondent being the father of the child, it cannot be said that the custody of the child with him was unlawful or illegal, so the child will remain with him. The petitioner may approach the learned Guardian Judge for the custody of child, if so advised.
Cited by 5 cases
- PEGGY COLLIN vs MUHAMMAD ISHFAQUE MALIK and 6 others 2010 PLD Lahore 48
- Mst. SYEDAN BIBI vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KHANEWAL and 2 others 2005 P C R L J 1780
- Miss HINA JILANI, DIRECTOR OF A.G.H.S. LEGAL AID CELL vs SOHAIL BUTT 1995 PLD Lahore 151
- Mst. MARIA KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR KHAN 1993 P Cr. L J 1097
- Mst. SYEDAN BIBI Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KHANEWAL 2005 PCrLJ 1780