Qanuni Amdad urdu

شائستہ حبیب بمقابلہ محمد عارف حبیب کا معاملہ ان کے بیٹے محمد ابراہیم کی تحویل کے تنازع کے گرد گھومتا ہے۔ درخواست گزار اور بچے کی والدہ شائستہ حبیب نے ابتدائی طور پر ازدواجی اختلافات کے بعد محمد عارف حبیب سے علیحدگی اختیار کر لی تھی جس کے نتیجے میں 2016 میں طلاق ہو گئی تھی۔ طلاق کے بعد وہ اپنے بیٹے کے ساتھ اپنی والدہ کے گھر چلی گئی۔ قانونی جنگ اس وقت شروع ہوئی جب محمد عارف حبیب نے 2017 میں گارڈین اینڈ وارڈز ایکٹ، 1890 کے تحت محمد ابراہیم کی تحویل کے لیے درخواست دائر کی۔ فیملی کورٹ نے ابتدائی طور پر 2021 میں محمد عارف حبیب کو تحویل میں دے دیا، جس کے فیصلے پر شائستہ حبیب نے 2022 میں اپیل کی ناکام رہی۔ سپریم کورٹ کی بعد میں مداخلت کا مرکز بچے محمد ابراہیم کی فلاح و بہبود تھا۔ عدالتی کارروائی کے دوران، محمد ابراہیم، جو 2013 میں پیدا ہوئے تھے، نے اپنی والدہ کے ساتھ رہنے کی اپنی ترجیح بیان کرتے ہوئے، اپنی عمر سے زیادہ پختگی کا مظاہرہ کیا۔ اس نے اپنے والد اور اپنے خاندان سے ناواقفیت اور تکلیف کا اظہار کیا، اپنے والد کے گھر چھوڑنے کے بعد سے محدود تعاملات کی وجہ سے تعلقات کی کمی پر زور دیا۔ سپری

Sure, here's a shorter version: **Case Summary:** **Parties:** Mehboob-ur-Rehman and Jawar vs State **Background:** Mehboob-ur-Rehman and Jawar were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by a lower court. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. **Legal Issue:** Whether they could file their appeal petitions immediately or needed to surrender to begin serving their sentences first. **Decision:** The Supreme Court ruled that convicted individuals must surrender to begin serving their sentences before their appeal petitions can be considered. **Outcome:** Mehboob-ur-Rehman and Jawar were required to surrender themselves to serve their sentences before their appeals could proceed in the Supreme Court. The case of *Mehboob-ur-Rehman and Jawar vs State* involves criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Here’s a summarized story of the case: **Background:** Mehboob-ur-Rehman and Jawar were involved in a criminal case where they were convicted and sentenced to i

The excerpt is from a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding cross-objections in appeals. It explains that cross-objections, similar to appeals, allow respondents to challenge parts of a judgment they disagree with, even if they didn't initially appeal. The court clarified that withdrawing the main appeal doesn't cancel cross-objections, which can still be heard and decided upon separately. This case highlights procedural rights in Indian law regarding appeals and cross-objections. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1787 of 2005 PETITIONER: Hari Shankar Rastogi RESPONDENT: Sham Manohar & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/03/2005 BENCH: S. N. Variava & H. K. Sema JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10396 of 2004] S. N. VARIAVA, J.  Leave granted.  Heard parties.  This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 22nd January,  2004 passed by the High Court of Delhi. The Respondent had filed the  Second Appeal. The Appe

The DNA report in unseen incidents of homicide is often referred as sufficient to lift veil from the identity of the culprit but such concept qualifies for acceptance subject to various restrictions and limitations. The acceptance of DNA report in legal system is based on the doctrine of law of individuality which is defined by Dr.B.R. Sharma in his book Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials in the manner that every object, natural or man-made, has an individuality, which is not duplicated in any other object and it is unique, neither the nature has duplicated itself nor can man. The law of individuality has been verified in various fields, the most important out of which pertains to finger prints which are never found to be identical of different persons.  Probative and corroborative value of DNA evidence.  While considering the DNA evidence, we must not forget that burden to prove the guilt of an accused upon the prosecution is much heavier than the onus of accused to

PLD 2024 سپریم کورٹ 645 میں، عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ خولہ، مسلم عائلی قانون کے تحت عورت کا حق ہے، اس کے لیے عدالت کے سامنے اس کی واضح اور غیر مبہم نیت کا اظہار کرنا ضروری ہے۔ عدالت اس وقت تک خلع نہیں دے سکتی جب تک کہ عورت واضح طور پر اپنا مہر معاف کر کے شادی کو تحلیل کرنے کی خواہش کا اظہار نہ کرے۔ لہٰذا، عدالت کے لیے خلع دینے پر غور کرنے کے لیے اس کی رضامندی اور واضح درخواست ضروری ہے۔ PLD 2024 Supreme Court 645 IBRAHIM KHAN vs Mst. SAIMA KHAN Khula is a basic right of a woman under Muslim family law---Right to seek Khula is the exclusive and absolute right of the woman---She must in unambiguous and unequivocal terms express her intention to exercise such right before the court, that is to say, she must put her offer before the court that she seeks release from the marriage by waiving her dower and only then the court can grant her Khula ---Fundamentally, the principle is that Khula cannot be granted, if it has not been explicitly sought for by the woman because she has to give up her rig

2021 CLC 1639 Suit for declaration and injunction--- Judgments at variance---Plaintiffs / respondents claimed to be owners of suit land and assailed mutations in favour of defendant/ appellant--- Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of plaintiffs / respondents--Validity---Ascendant of defendants I respondents had already transferred his title therefore, nothing more was left to be inherited by the latters for its transfer to defendant / appellant---Entire superstructure raised in their favour without any title or legal backing could not be perpetuated and every fresh entry in revenue record based on inheritance mutation or subsequent sale deed accrued fresh cause of action to plaintiffs / respondents to institute suit, which was well within time---Trial Court framed issue pertaining to maintainability of suit but it was not pressed and was answered accordingly---Findings regarding issué of maintainability of suit was not assailed before Lo

خاص طور پر، یہ اس بات پر روشنی ڈالتا ہے کہ جب تک پاور آف اٹارنی کسی کیس میں سمجھوتہ کرنے، مقدمہ واپس لینے، یا حکم نامہ حاصل کرنے کے اختیار کا واضح طور پر ذکر نہیں کرتا، اٹارنی کے پاس یہ اختیارات نہیں ہیں۔ دستاویز کی مکمل تشریح کی جانی چاہیے، اور مخصوص اختیارات کے دائرہ کار سے باہر کیے گئے کسی بھی اقدام کی قانونی حیثیت نہیں ہو سکتی اور اس پر کیس کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ The  explains that a power of attorney (Vakalatnama) only grants authority explicitly mentioned within its terms. It does not imply authority for actions like compromising a case or obtaining a decree unless specifically stated. Any actions taken beyond the specified powers may not be legally valid. The principles discussed likely apply to the case "Writ Petition-3631-15 FALAK SHER VS HASHMAT BIBI."  the interpretation of a power of attorney (Vakalatnama) in the context of a lawsuit or legal representation. The emphasizes that a power of attorney grants authority strictly according to what is expressly stated or necessa