Case of Dar ul Aman in Lahore Pakistan:
Advocate Nazia from Lahore says that in case of Habeas corpus petition the petitioner could not be kept in Dar ulAman in Lahore Pakistan for an indefinite period against her wisher which was not only volatile of fundamental rights under Article 10 of the constitution but also militated against the right of marriage protected by the constitution under Article 35, matter despite lapse of seven months, was being dept pending for one reason or the other. Nikahnama produced by the complainant could not so far be verified by the police officer despite the order of the High Court. Petitioner claimed herself as the wife of her present husband and she is an adult Muslim girl who had the exclusive right to decide with whom to marry and she could not be compelled to disassociate her with her husband simply because her marriage was not approved by her parents.
Wife Get Separation And Come in Dar ul Aman:
The petitioner was directed to be released from Dar ul Aman in Lahore Pakistan with the permission to accompany her husband in circumstances. However, the investigation in the case was directed to proceed on its merits and the findings of the judge Family Court were to decide the fate of the criminal case registered against the petitioner. The petition was disposed of accordingly. A petitioner who was sent to Dar ulAman in Lahore Pakistan by order of judicial magistrate moved an application under S.491 Cr. P. C. before sessions judge wherein she sought her release from Dar ulAman in Lahore Pakistan which application having been dismissed petitioner had fled constitutional petition against said dismissal order.
By Article 25 All Citizen Equal:
The petitioner was an adult and her consistent stand was that she apprehended danger to her life at their hands. Article 25 of the constitution provided that all citizens were equal before the law there would be no discrimination based on sex alone. Under articles 9 & 15 of the Constitution, no citizen could be 195 deprived of liberty and no restriction could be imposed on the freedom of the citizen. Sessions judge being aware of the legal status of the petitioner while passing impugned order observed that petitioner could be sent to Dar ulAman in Lahore Pakistan if she liked so. The impugned order of Sessions Judge was ambiguous as on the one hand Sessions Judge had imposed a condition on petitioner that she could only accompany the relative relating to her within the prohibited degree and on the other hand he ordered that she could be sent to Dar ulAman in Lahore Pakistan if so liked petitioner in circumstances was never given a choice as she had filed a petition with a prayer to be set free.
No Restriction on The Women who come in Dar ulAman:
No restriction on the movement of the petitioner could be imposed by session Judge High Court allowing petition set aside the order of Sessions imposed. The petitioner is an adult citizen of Pakistan who was set free and she could lead a life of her own choice. High Court through the impugned order passed in a habeas corpus petition directed the petitioner to be lodged in darkly amen contention was that the F.I. R. registered against the petitioner had been discharged and her liberty would be affected by lodging her in darkly amen who was in an advanced stage of pregnancy.