' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---By filing instant application under section 491 C.R.P.C.
The petitioner Mst. Jameela Bibi prays for recovery of her minor son, namely, Muhammad Bilal, aged about 10-years from the custody of respondent No,2, father of the minor with an assertion that her son was removed from her custody forcibly.
2. On the application, S.H.O. Of the Police Station concerned was directed to recover the minor and produce him in the court who reported that the residence ,of minor is within the jurisdiction of Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeern, Okara, thus, S.H.O. Of the said police station be directed for compliance. In the meanwhile, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has cited the case of "Mst. Nadia Perveen v. Mst. Almas Noreen and others"(PLD 2012 Supreme Court 758) to say that petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. Is not maintainable when custody of a grownup child is involved in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out any ground for relief prayed in the instant petition.
3. The case-law cited by learned. Deputy Prosecutor General has been examined in which it has been observed by the apex Court that jurisdiction of a High Court under section 491, Cr.P.C.. For recovery of Minors is to be exercised sparingly and such exercise may be undertaken only in exceptional and extraordinary cases and real urgency keeping in A view that even a Guardian Judge has the requisite power of recovery of minors and regulating their interim custody. When the instant petition has been examined in the light of case-law, I could not, find any exceptional and extraordinary circumstances warranting institution of instant petition. The petitioner has not given the date of her divorce nor is able to mention exact and correct date of removal of minor from her lawful custody. From the petition, it appears that the petitioner just wants to extort money in the form of maintenance allowance of minor from the respondent for which reason she has applied for custody of her son. The petitioner has also given incorrect date of removal of minor from her custody as is. Apparent from Para-5 which indicates date of removal as 5-12-2012 which date has yet, not reached. In view of this position while following the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any reason to direct the police officials to recover the minor from the custody of respondent No,2. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek her remedy before the learned Guardian Judge in appropriate proceedings.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the petition being not maintainable is dismissed.