ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

C.   P. No.S-66    of  2011

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

03.03.2011.

1. For orders on office objections.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

Mr. Faiz Muhammad Larik, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, State Counsel, alongwith Insp. Ghulam Hussain Chandio of PS Market, Larkana.

                             ----------------------

                   Miss Rubina Dhamrah, advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record.

                    Through instant petition, the petitioner has complained harassment being caused at the behest of respondent No.2, who was divorced by the petitioner.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of marriage of petitioner and respondent No.2 one baby, namely Minhal was born.  Per learned Counsel, whenever the petitioner visits at the house of respondent No.2, he is not allowed by the respondent No.2 even to meet his minor daughter and harassment is caused by respondent No.2 and her family, whereas police also interferes into such private matter between the petitioner and respondent no.2.

                   Notices were issued, in response to which the respondent No.1 has filed his statement and has denied all the allegations.  It has been intimated that the petitioner was never called at Police Station nor harassed in any manner. 

                   Miss Rubina Dhamrah, appearing for respondent No.2, as per instructions, states that no harassment has been caused to the petitioner by the respondent No.2.  She further states that an order was passed by this Court in a constitutional petition, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance in this Court, whereas the petitioner was allowed to meet with the minor whenever he wants to meet her.  Per learned Counsel, the compliance of those orders is not being made by the petitioner, whereas he has chosen to file instant frivolous proceedings before this Court.

                   It appears that the matter relates to compliance of order passed by this Court in constitutional proceedings already disposed of by this Court.  Both the Counsel state that their respective clients will abide by the orders of this Court passed in constitutional petition relating to the maintenance and meeting of petitioner with the minor baby namely Minhal in letter and spirit in order to avoid any further dispute in this regard.  Whereas no harassment whatsoever shall be caused by either parties. 

                   Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of in the above terms.

                                                                                                JUDGE