Law on Maintenance

( Family Court- Maintainance )
If father or grand father too poor to pay maintainance,so family court issue direction to baitul maal or zzakat council to pay minors maintainance instead of sending defendents to jail.
PLD 2012 Lhr 445

case law on Bail in 426

S.426---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4---Manufacturing, owning or possessing intoxicant---Suspension of sentences---Application for---Sentence awarded to accused was two years and the revision petition was not going to be fixed for final hearing in the near future-Accepting application, sentence of accused was suspended and he was admitted to bail.
2010 YLR 1396 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUNIR AHMAD
Side Opponent : State

case law on appeal in 3/4 PEHO

-Arts. 3 & 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203-F---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Inimical and interested witnesses---Allegation against accused/appellant was that pursuant to tip- police party, after getting search warrants from Area Magistrate, conducted raid and arrested accused who led to recovery of 2500 grams of heroin---Federal Shariat Court maintained conviction and sentence passed on accused by Trial Court---Accused contended that prior to registration of case against him a criminal case under Ss.452, 341, 342, 384, 148 & 149; P.P.C. was got registered against police including S.H.O. of concerned police station at the direction of High Court; that accused played an active role in registration of case against police and he was cited as witness therein and that habeas corpus petition had been filed in High Court on behalf of accused and in order to justify his illegal detention, police falsely involved him in the present case and also in some other cases of identical nature---Validity---Discrepant prosecution evidence had been furnished against accused by inimical and interested witnesses---Documentary evidence transpired that accused was harassed to such an extent that he was compelled to file suit for damages and writ petition through his wife for his release from illegal detention of police---Police was so much poised against accused that he was involved in so many other cases---Accused had continuously insisted on investigation of case against police by some other investigation agency which fact further aggravated grievance of police against him---Prosecution did not prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Accused was entitled to acquittal on ground of benefit of doubt---Appeal was accepted.
2007 SCMR 1288 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : RASHID AHMED alias PAPPU
Side Opponent : State

case law on 514 crpc

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable on two grounds; firstly that order of forfeiture of. surety bond was passed when surety was no more alive and same having been passed in violation of S.514(6), Cr.P.C., was not sustainable; secondly, penalty could be imposed upon the surety only when it was proved that absence of accused from the court was intentional and was not for the reason beyond the control of accused
S. 514---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4---Forfeiture of surety bond---Applicant stood surety for accused and executed surety bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000---Accused having failed to appear in the court on date of hearing, the Trial Court issued notice to applicant/surely under S.514, Cr. P. C., but prior to service of notice, applicant/surety died---Widow of the surety appeared before the court submitted that her husband had died and she was a poor lady and requested for return of the bond amount deposited by her deceased husband in the court, but the Trial Court did not agree with the submission of the widow and imposed penalty of half the amount of surety bond viz. Rs.2,50,000---Trial Court. further ordered that the remaining half amount along with interest be returned to the 'widow of the applicant/surety---Validity---Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable on two grounds; firstly that order of forfeiture of. surety bond was passed when surety was no more alive and same having been passed in violation of S.514(6), Cr.P.C., was not sustainable; secondly, penalty could be imposed upon the surety only when it was proved that absence of accused from the court was intentional and was not for the reason beyond the control of accused---In the present case it had come on record that accused was taken to U.S.A. and was detained there and he could not attend the court---Absence of accused being for the reason beyond his control, no penalty could have been imposed upon applicant/surety, even on that count---Impugned order was set aside with the direction that bail amount of Rs.5,00,000 lying in the court be paid to widow of the surety on production of succession certificate from the competent court of law.

2008 YLR 2699 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL SATTAR
Side Opponent : State

Benefit of doubt faing to to produce Entry

Art. 4---Failure to produce Roznamcha Entry---Effect---Failure of prosecution to produce Roznamcha entry in evidence makes the authenticity of the whole prosecution case doubtful, about the proceedings taken by raiding party.
2010 PCrLJ 157 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT
Side Appellant : WAHAB ALI
Side Opponent : State

case law on family suit Jurisdiction

Family Court where the wife resides, shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all such matters. further Provisions of Ss.16 to 20, C.P.C. stood excluded from the proceedings before the Family Court, thus, the question of its territorial jurisdiction would never arise,
R. 6---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 17 --- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 16 to 20---Family Court---Territorial jurisdiction---"Court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resides"---Family Court alone had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all the matrimonial disputes, whatever their nature, irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, provided that the Family Court where the wife resides shall have the jurisdiction to entertain such suits/claims---Provisions of Ss.16 to 20, C.P.C. stood excluded from the proceedings before the Family Court, thus, the question of its territorial jurisdiction would never arise, provided that the Family Court where the wife resides, shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all such matters.
2016 PLD 613 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. YASMEEN BIBI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN

case law on identification parade not needed

--Identification of an accused person before the Trial Court during the trial---Generally unsafe. (ZAHID HUSSAIN CHANNA )
2016 S C M R 1554
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Tariq Parvez and Dr. Muhammad Khalid Masud, JJ
HAIDER ALI and others---Petitioners
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. The State and others 1992 SCMR 2088; Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and another v. State and others 2009 SCMR 436; Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal 2011 SCMR 527; Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State 2011 SCMR 537 and Ghulam Shabbir Ahmed and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 683 ref.