Low Graphics Site
White bar
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

January 3, 2003 Friday Shawwal 29, 1423


KARACHI: Petition of Aamir’s wife disposed of


KARACHI, Jan 2: A division bench of High Court of Sindh disposed of on Thursday an application filed by Malika Saboohi, wife of Aamir Khan, general secretary of the Mohajir Qaumi Movement, directing officials not to harass the family.

The bench consisted of Justice Shabbir Ahmed and Justice S. Ali Aslam Jafri.

The court also directed the state to take action against Aamir Khan, absconder in a criminal case, strictly according to the law.

Earlier, Abbasi Ali, Additional Advocate-General Sindh, appearing for the state, told the court that non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the petitioner’s husband and other workers/leaders of the MQM (H) had been issued by an additional district and sessions judge, Malir.

The AAG maintained that the petitioner’s family was not harassed. He also undertook that family members of the petitioner would not be harassed.

After the undertaking given by the AAG, the court disposed of the miscellaneous application.

The same bench also dismissed a miscellaneous application filed by Aneesa Farooqui and Sharmila Farooqui, wife and daughter of Usman Farooqui, respectively, former chairman of the Pakistan Steel Mills.

The applicant prayed to the court for urgent hearing of their constitutional petition seeking deletion of their names from the exit control list. The applicants maintained that Aneesa Farooqui needed medical treatment abroad and Sharmila would be nursing her.

The court held that there was no urgency in the matter.—APP






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005