Summary: Background: The petitioners filed Shariat Petitions challenging the provisions of Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. They claimed that these sections are anti-people, inhuman, and un-Islamic. The petitioners argued that the father's right as the natural guardian should be absolute, without interference from the courts, and that the welfare of the minor should be determined based solely on Islamic principles. ----Issues: 1- Whether Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the court should provide a judicial interpretation of these sections consistent with Islamic principles. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, including Sections 7 and 25, had previously been examined by the Council of Islamic Ideology, which found it to be in accordance with the injunctions of Islam, except for Sections 19(a) and 39(j). The court emphasized that its mandate is to determine whether a law or provision is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, not to answer broad or hypothetical questions. The court underscored that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration under Section 25 of the Act, consistent with Islamic jurisprudence. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to identify any specific Islamic injunctions that were violated by these sections. The petitions were dismissed in limine, reaffirming that the challenged sections are not repugnant to Islamic injunctions and that the welfare of the minor remains the primary concern. ----Citations/Precedents: 1974 SCMR 305 (Rahimullah Choudhury vs. Mrs. Syeda Helali Begum & others) PLJ 2014 FSC 99 (Ambreen Tariq Awan, Advocate vs. Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary M/O Law & Justice, Islamabad)

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged sections 7, 17, and 27 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, arguing that these sections were repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The petitioner contended that the law unduly favors the father as the natural guardian while relegating the mother to mere custodianship of the child. ----Issues: 1- Whether sections 7, 17, and 27 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, are repugnant to Islamic injunctions as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. 2- Whether the court’s role in appointing a guardian for minors aligns with Islamic principles. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The court noted that Islamic law requires the dispensation of justice in all matters, including guardianship. The verses cited by the petitioner were not relevant to the specific issue of guardianship. Moreover, the court emphasized that Islamic principles allow for the appointment of guardians in the best interest of the minor, a principle reflected in the Guardian and Wards Act. The court also highlighted that its jurisdiction is limited to determining repugnancy to the injunctions of Islam and not to interpret juristic opinions from other sources. The court ruled that the impugned sections are not repugnant to the injunctions of Islam and dismissed the petition. ----Citations/Precedents: Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 Article 203D(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan Verses from the Holy Quran related to justice (5:42, 4:58, 16:90, 6:152)

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan---- ---Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Recovery of children---Scope---Petitioner was wife of respondent and she had been divorced---Petitioner/mother had already approached Sessions Court under S. 491, Cr. P. C for the same relief---Age of children was nine and seven years and petitioner could not claim her right of Hizanat/ custody of children, who were in the custody of their father being their natural guardian---Custody of children with their father could not be treated as illegal as he was responsible for their upbringing as a natural guardian---Petitioner/mother should file petition under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to claim the custody or visiting rights of children---Complaint to Station House Officer against husband for having custody of children did not mean that extraordinary circumstances had arisen for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---No case was made out for invoking jurisdiction of High Court for recovery/production of children in the court---Petitioner had equally, efficacious and alternate remedy under Guardians and Wards At, 1890 and she might file guardian petition if so advised as Guardian Judge had power of recovery of minors and regulating their interim custody---Constitutional petition was not maintainable which was dismissed in circumstances. Mst. Nadia Perveen v. Mst. Almas Noreen and others PLD 2012 SC 758 rel.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged sections 7, 17, and 27 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, claiming that these sections were repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The petitioner argued that these sections, which deal with the appointment and duties of guardians by the court, contradict Islamic principles, specifically regarding the roles and rights of guardianship, typically favoring the father as the natural guardian. -----Issues: 1- Whether sections 7, 17, and 27 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. 2- Whether the court has the authority to appoint or remove guardians based on the principles of justice and welfare of the minor. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition. The court found that the sections in question empower the court to act in the best interest of the minor, aligning with the principles of justice in Islam. The court emphasized that Islamic jurisprudence grants authority to the courts to appoint or remove guardians as necessary for the welfare of the minor, which is consistent with the injunctions of Islam. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide any specific Quranic verses or Hadith that directly contradicted the impugned sections. Additionally, the court highlighted that its jurisdiction is limited to determining the repugnancy of laws based on the Quran and Sunnah, not on juristic opinions. The petition was also found procedurally deficient, as the petitioner failed to appear before the court despite multiple notices. The petition was dismissed as being without merit and procedurally flawed.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------Ss. 47, 4(5) & 25---West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), Ss. 14 & 5,Sched---Application for custody of minor---Forum of appeal---Application filed under S.25of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was accepted by Family Court---Appeal preferred beforeAdditional District Judge was dismissed for want of jurisdiction---Validity---Whileentertaining petition for custody of minor and other related matters under Guardians andWards Act, 1890, same was not to be dealt with in isolation rather the provisions of WestPakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 were to be read co-jointly---Family Court constitutedunder the provisions of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had exclusive jurisdiction inthe matters enumerated in the Schedule attached to the said Act---Section 5 of West PakistanFamily Courts Act, 1964 with the Schedule attached therein described the limits ofjurisdiction vested with Family Court---Matters pertaining to custody of children andvisitation rights of parents and guardianship would come in the exclusive jurisdiction ofFamily Court---Section 4(5) of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was not to be read inisolation rather to be read with S.25 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Whiledealing with the matters contained in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Family Court had tofollow the procedure prescribed in the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890---Section 47 ofGuardians and Wards Act, 1890 described the forum of appeal in the matters decided underthe provisions of said Act as High Court---Any order passed by Family Court while entertaining an application for custody of minor would not amount to an order of DistrictCourt nor right of appeal would become available before High Court rather appeal had to bepreferred under S.14 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Appeal against orderpertaining to matters covered by Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 should lie before DistrictCourt except where Family Court being presided over by District Judge or AdditionalDistrict Judge or a person notified by the Government to be of such rank and status, and insuch case appeal should lie to the High Court---If application for custody of minor was heardand decided by Family Judge not having status of District Judge, the appeal should lie toDistrict Judge---Appellate Court was under misconception and had committed an error---Constitutional petition was accepted and order of Additional District Judge was set aside andAppellate Court was directed to decide the appeal on merit.

Summary: The background of the case is that Muhammad Hafeez's marriage with respondent No. 2 took place, and they had three children together. Due to marital differences, the marriage was dissolved, and Muhammad Hafeez filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking guardianship of two of their minor children who were living with him. The custody of the third child (Muhammad Kashif) was also requested to be handed over to him. However, the petition was later withdrawn, and the learned Guardian Judge directed Hafeez to hand over the custody of the minors Zoha and Muhammad Sohail to respondent No. 2. Warrants of arrest under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were issued against Hafeez when he did not comply with the order. In the writ petition, Hafeez challenges the jurisdiction of the Guardian Judge to issue warrants under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. and argues that the order to hand over custody was passed without proper notice. After hearing both parties' arguments and examining the relevant provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, the judge finds that the Guardian Judge exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the order to hand over custody. The judge sets aside the impugned order and also states that subsequent orders based on the impugned order are no longer valid. The order concludes by allowing respondent No. 2 to establish her right to guardianship of the minors by filing appropriate proceedings before the competent court.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, acting as a guardian, seeks permission to take a minor, Amrina Masih, to the USA for immigration and adoption purposes. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as the guardian of the child through a court order dated 19.01.2011. Despite having custody of the child with the parents' permission, the petitioner encountered resistance in amending the order to include the word "adoption," necessary for the child's immigration process. ----Issues: Whether the court should grant permission for the minor's immigration and adoption in the USA. Whether the absence of the word "adoption" in the guardianship order impedes the immigration process. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court allowed the petitioner's plea, considering the minor's welfare and the absence of objections from any party involved. The court emphasized the importance of the minor's well-being and the parents' consent, as evidenced by the execution of a deed of adoption. It noted the absence of laws for adoption in Pakistan but recognized the legal framework in the USA for inter-country adoption. Considering the Hague Adoption Convention and the petitioner's compliance with US adoption laws, the court deemed the immigration and adoption in the USA appropriate for the minor's welfare. ----Citations/Precedents: "AIR 1984 SC 469" "2005(3) KLT 57" Hague Adoption Convention

Summary: PLJ 2011 Peshawar 63 [DI Khan Bench] Present Muhammad Alam Khan J MUHAMMAD RASOOL and 3 others - - Petitioners versus Mst MASROON BIBI and 16 others - - Respondents CR No 236 with C Misc No 142 of 2004 decided on 1892008 Guradians and Wards Act 1890 (VIII of 1890) - - - - - - S 48 - - Question whether civil revision is competent in the case and whether CPC is applicable in guardianship proceedings - - Held Under Section 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act the provisions of CPC are applicable - - In view of express provisions of CPC being made applicable to the guardianship proceedings before the Guardian Judge the revision petition before High Court are competent [Pp 67 68] A Mr Rustam Khan Kundi Advocate for Petitioners Sh Iftikharul Haq Advocate for Respondent No 1 Mr Abdul Aziz Khan Kundi Advocate for Respondents No 6 7Judgement Result:Petitions dismissed

Summary: S. 19(b) of Guardian and Ward Act, 1890. Mother to establish unfitness of father to become guardian of person of minor---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------Ss. 7, 19(b), 25 & 47---Appointment of guardian of minor---Application by mother ofminor son for appointing her as the guardian of minor had been dismissed---Minor aged 7 -years was in custody of the applicant (mother), while respondent was father of the minor---Nothing was on record that any step was taken by father of minor to deprive the mother fromcustody of the minor---Despite having custody, mother was trying to get herself appointed asguardian of the person of the minor---Validity---Section 19 of Guardians and Wards Act,1890, provided certain instances whereby the court was restrained to appoint or declare aguardian of property or person of minor---Main consideration, while appointing a person asguardian of a minor, was the welfare of the minor---In the present case, nothing was onrecord, nor even asserted by the applicant (mother) on basis of which the respondent (father)could be considered unfit to be guardian of person of minor son---Under Islamic Law, motherwas entitled only for custody of her minor son till her attained age of 7 years---Situation wasquite different in the present case as applicant being mother of minor, was already in custodyof the minor, but now she intended to get herself appointed as his guardian---Mother, in viewof S.19(b) of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 had to establish that father was unfit to becomeguardian of person of minor, but she had completely failed to disclose any reason, nor shehad placed on record any material on account of which father had been disqualified tobecome guardian of his minor son---Applicant had failed to make out any case in her favour---In absence of any irregularity or illegality in the judgment of the Trial Court, same could notbe interfered with---Impugned judgment was upheld, in circumstances.Mst. Hamida Begum and another v. Ubedullah and others 1989 CLC 604 ref.

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.S. 25 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 custody of minor welfare of child would be of paramount consideration.