PLJ 2012 Lahore High Court 717
Present to: Ayesha A. Malik
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973– —-Art. 199–NADRA (NIL) Rules, 2002–National Identity Card was legal document for identification of citizen–CNIC wrongfully mentioned name of father–Correction of office mistake–Request for correction of office mistake was not made within stipulated time–Court order was required–Validity–It was perpetuating a wrong in its own data base, which negates purpose of national identity card–NADRA was bound to maintain a correct data base and was bound to print correct information on CNIC–Since petitioner was issued a NIC in 1981 and card states his father name as Haji Channan Din and NADRA was obligated to correct any error in its data base or on CNIC it issues to citizen–At best its an internal document and cannot from the basis of denying petitioner right to have correct information maintained in citizen data base and printed on CNIC–If error was not corrected it would negate very purpose of issuing CNIC to a citizen–Delay in filing application for correction of an office mistake cannot hamper or prevent the process of actually correcting data base or CNIC–Petition was accepted.
Judgement Result: Petition disposed of
PLJ 2017 Peshawar High Court 32
Present to: NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND WAQAR AHMAD SETH
SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PESHAWAR and 4 others
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973– —-Art. 199–Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, R. 12-A–Constitutional petition–Correction of date of birth in service book–Salary was stopped–Suit for declaration seeking correction in date of birth as wrongly entered in record of NADRA–Suit was decreed–Correction of date of birth in CNIC and not in service record–Maintainability–Decree of Civil Court obtained by petitioner was not binding or applicable to government–Civil servant had not arrayed education department a party in suit–Suit was merely against NADRA for correction of date of birth in CNIC–Civil servant at stage of retirement could not be allowed to take any benefit regarding matter about which he himself was negligent and illiteracy or otherwise of civil servant was no ground at all–Petition was dismissed. [Pp. 37 & 38] A & B 2003 SCMR 444, 2004 PLC (CS) 1162 & 1998 SCMR 1494, ref.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed
Hindu Married Women s Rights to Separate Resident and Maintenance Act, 1946– —-Scope of–Muslim Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 10(5)–Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, S. 1(2)–Hindu lady, filed suit for separation against petitioner, which was allowed by Family Court under Section 10(5) of Family Court Act 1964–Petitioner challenging judgment of family Court–Held: Act, 1964 is not only relating to muslim family matters and Special Courts were established to exercise jurisdiction in respect of all matters as mentioned in Part I of schedule under Section 5 of Act irrespective of facts that any dispute brought to special Court, i.e family Court is by a Muslim or a non Muslim or a Hindu. [P. 733] A
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed
PLJ 2017 Lahore 732
Paternity of Minor– —-Disown paternity of minor by father-Jurisdiction–Question of paternity can only be decided by Civil Court–Validity–Question of paternity cannot be determined by Family Court and as such District Judge in appeal could not remand case to Family Court to determine paternity of minor–Family Court as well as Court of District Judge is not a Court of civil jurisdiction as understood in CPC–It is only a civil Court which can adjudicate upon paternity of minor.
PLJ 2016 Lahore High Court 818
Section 5 of Family Court Act 1964
Section 9 of Guardian and ward Act 1890
custody and guardianship of minor–determination of jurisdiction… family court had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudication all the matters which fell within first Schedule of Family Court Act 1964 which included and guardianship matters…. In the present case, application for custody of minors filed under section 25 of guardian and ward Act 1890 was returned for presentation before the appropriate forum.. constitution Petition was allowed accordingly,
2017 CLC Note 162
PLD 2012 Supreme Court 66