' Brief facts out of which the present habeas corpus petition arises are that Amjad Ali, solemnized marriage with the detenue on 4-2-1999. Age of the detenue is mentioned in column No,6, 22 years and the age of the petitioner 25 years. Nikah was solemnized in Chak No,521/T.D.A., Muzaffargarh.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the detenue is sui juris and has competent to solemnize marriage with the petitioner. He further stated that the Nikahnama was executed with the consent of the mother of the detenue. He further stated that respondents wanted to usurp the landed property and other movable property of the detenue.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the age of the detenue is 12 years and 5 months.
He further stated that the father of the detenue was died on 18-12-1996. Her mother solemnized marriage with one Muhammad Ishaque in the month of April, 1999. He further stated that the mother of the detenue left the children with the respondents who are all minors namely Gulshan, Muhammad Imran, Sadia, Fauzia and detenue. He further stated that the detenue remained with the respondents in village 687/27/G.B. Tehsil Kamalia District Toba Tek Singh. He further stated that mother abducted the detenue and executed the aforesaid Nikahnama on 4-2-1999. He further stated that the amount in the Bank has already been deposited in the fixed account in the names of the minors. He further stated that the respondents are the maternal-uncle of the detenue.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal stated that although the age of the detenue is mentioned in the Nikahnama 22 years but she is major and her age is not 22 years. He further stated that for the purpose of determining the age, medical report may be obtained from the doctor.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It seems that the age of the detenue is not 22 years. It is also admitted fact that other minors are living with the respondents whose ages are less than 10 years. It is also admitted fact that the mother of the detenue has solemnized second marriage on 18-12-1996 leaving the detenue and other minors with the respondents. This Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to record the evidence as the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1997 SC 852. It is also settled proposition of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to give finding qua the Nikahnama. It is paramount duty and obligation of the Family Court to decide whether Nikahnama is valid or not as the principle laid down in Azam's case PLD 1984 SC 95. Petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition with unclean hands. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion on the well-known principle that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands as the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ronaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236 and Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCM R 1462.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the habeas corpus petition has no force and the same is dismissed.