The page cannot be found

1 of 1

http://pakistanlawsite.com/LawOnline/law/topbar.asp

The page cannot be found

The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name
changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Please try the following:

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that
it is spelled correctly.
Open the pakistanlawsite.com home page, and then look for links
to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Information Services
Technical Information (for support personnel)
More information:
Microsoft Support

13/01/2016 14:08

Case Judgement

1 of 2

http://pakistanlawsite.com/LawOnline/law/content21.asp?Casedes=19...

1969 P Cr. L J 269

[Lahore]
Before Ataullah Sajjad, J
NOOR MUHAMMADPetitioner
Versus
Mst. SHEEDAN BIBI AND ANOTHERRespondents
Criminal Revision No. 377 of 1966, decided on 14th November 1968.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 488 read with West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXIV of
1964), S. 4-Pending cases for maintenanceJurisdiction of Magistrates in pending cases tinder S. 488 not
excluded on coming into force of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.
Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti for Petitioner.
Syed Faqir Hussain for Respondent No. 1.
Malik Abdus Salam for A.G. for the State.

JUDGMENT
This is a revision petition against the order of Mr. Muhammad Daud, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore,
dated 23rd of April 1966, by which he refused to suspend the order of maintenance passed in favour of
Mst. Sheedan, respondent No. 1. Mst. Sheedan filed an application against the petitioner for maintenance
under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that she was his legally wedded wife
and was being refused maintenance by him. The learned Magistrate awarded Rs. 40. p.m. as maintenance
to her. A revision petition was filed by Nur Muhammad which came up before Mr. Muhammad Daud,
Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. An application for suspension of the order of maintenance was also
filed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to suspend the order on the ground that section 20 of
the Family Courts Act had reconfirmed the jurisdiction of the Magistrates and the order passed could not
be held to be illegal. He, therefore, refused to suspend it. The present revision petition was then filed
against the interim order of the Additional Sessions Judge, refusing to suspend the order of maintenance.
2. The argument raised before the High Court at the time of admission of the revision was that the S. D.
M., Kasur could not have been appointed as a Judge under section 4 of the West Pakistan Family Courts
Act XXXIV of 1964).
3. No one appears for the parties. The argument advanced at the time of the admission of the revision
petition was misconceived. According to subsection (3) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Family Courts
Act of 1964, the Act was to come into force on a date prescribed by the Government in a Notification
published in the official Gazette. The application having admittedly been filed on 10th of December 1964,
when such a notification did not exist, the prevailing law had to have its course and the proceedings under
section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code were quite competent. The notification applying the
provisions of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act to Lahore was published on 2nd of November 1965.

13/01/2016 14:08

Case Judgement

2 of 2

http://pakistanlawsite.com/LawOnline/law/content21.asp?Casedes=19...

There is no provision in the Family Courts Act which excludes the jurisdiction of the Magistrates in
respect of pending cases for maintenance.
4. I have also looked into the merits of the case and find that the order was properly passed in view of the
circumstances of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, even if he agreed with the petitioner,
would have forwarded this case for the orders of the High Court. I do not think that I should withhold my
opinion on the merits of the case and prolong this matter any further by sending the case back to the
Sessions Judge. It has come to my notice on the revisional side and I hold that the order was properly
passed.
5. As a result of the above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petition filed by Nur
Muhammad before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, even if it is pending, has become infructuous
as a result of this order. The order of the Magistrate shall have effect.
Petition dismissed.

13/01/2016 14:08