Summary: (a) Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (VIII of 1890) ----Sections 7 & 17—Custody of minor—Paramount consideration is welfare of minor—Mother’s remarriage—Effect In proceedings under Section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor, not the personal rights of either parent—Mother’s remarriage does not automatically disqualify her from custody unless it demonstrably undermines the welfare of the child—In present case, the minor had remained with the mother since birth, and custody was transferred solely due to remarriage and perceived financial dependency—Such rationale held insufficient as per principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Cited Cases: • Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen (2022 SCMR 2123) • Shaista Bibi v. Muhammad Arif Habib (PLD 2024 SC 629) (b) Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (VIII of 1890) ----Section 25—Custody of minor—Financial dependence of mother—Effect—Obligation to maintain child lies with father Petitioner-mother filed suit for maintenance against the father and was considered financially dependent by the courts below—Held, this conclusion was erroneous—Filing for maintenance does not denote financial incapacity but rather reinforces the father's legal obligation under Islamic and statutory law to provide for the child—Financial status of mother is not determinative when father's legal duty to maintain child exists. Cited Case: • Humayun Hassan v. Arslan Humayun (PLD 2013 SC 557) (c) Custody of minor—Delay in filing custody petition—Father’s conduct—Relevance Father filed custody petition several years after divorce and mother’s remarriage, and only after maintenance proceedings were initiated against him—Held, unexplained delay and failure to seek custody or visitation earlier reflect lack of genuine concern—Father’s conduct seen as opportunistic, adversely affecting his entitlement to custody—Genuine concern for welfare of child is a pre-requisite in such cases. (d) Visitation Rights—Father’s entitlement—Welfare of minor—Balanced approach Although custody was awarded to mother based on welfare considerations, the father’s right to maintain a relationship with his minor son remains intact—Court directed the Executing Court to establish a structured visitation schedule to ensure meaningful parental contact, safeguarding emotional well-being of the minor. ---- Disposition: Writ petition allowed; judgments and decrees of lower courts set aside. Custody awarded to mother. Visitation rights granted to father, to be structured by Executing Court.''In custody disputes, the parties' conduct is a significant factor. A mother's remarriage, however, does not ipso facto render her ineligible for custody of the minor. Writ Petition is allowed and concurrent findings of lower courts are reversed.''

Summary: (a) Guardian and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) — Ss. 17 & 25 — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 Custody of minor — Welfare of the child — Biological parents as natural guardians — No substitution by extended family in absence of extraordinary circumstances. Petitioners, being maternal uncle and aunt, challenged the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, whereby custody of minor girl Midhat Azhar was handed over to her real parents (respondents). Petitioners contended that they were caring for the child in a well-off environment since her infancy and adoption had occurred with the consent of biological parents—Held, however, that biological parentage is a legally and naturally recognized guardianship; petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of welfare being with real parents—Court reiterated that in ordinary circumstances, foster parents, even if close relatives, cannot claim preferential rights over natural parents—Principles of Islamic law and settled jurisprudence reinforced that adoptive or foster relations are not legally equivalent to natural parenthood—Appellate court rightly applied parameters under Ss. 17 & 25 of the Act—Findings of appellate court being well-reasoned and in accordance with law do not call for interference in constitutional jurisdiction. ----Cited Cases: • Mst. Nur Jehan Begum v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi (1991 SCMR 2300) • Mst. Rehmat v. Mst. Zubaida Begum (2021 SCMR 1534) • Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem (2014 SCMR 343) • Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad (PLD 2020 SC 508) • Mrs. Shaukat Khalid v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi (1991 SCMR 19) • Rahimullah Choudhury v. Sayeda Helali Begum (1974 SCMR 305) • Miss Nancy Ruth Baney v. District Judge, Islamabad (PLD 2011 Islamabad 6) • Jamshed v. Saleemuddin (PLD 2014 Sindh 120) • Mst. Farah Mehnaz v. Safeer Hussain Jaffar (2013 CLC 235) • Shahida Adnan v. Additional District Judge (2021 YLR 1915) • Muhammad Hafeez v. District Judge, Karachi East (2008 SCMR 398) • Rao Abdul Rehman v. Muhammad Afzal (2023 SCMR 815) ----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed. Custody of the minor girl to remain with her biological parents. Judgment of the appellate court upheld. "Writ Petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?section 17 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890--- Mutual voluntarily handing over custody of minor to adoptive parents---" After six years real parents seek restoration of the custody--- Held that in the presence of biological real parents of the minor, the custody of the minor girl cannot be handed over to adopted parents as the welfare of the minor best lies with the real parents. Writ Petition of adoptive parents for custody of minor is dismissed.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) – Ss. 17 & 25 Custody of minor children—Welfare of the minor as paramount consideration—Father’s financial status alone not a decisive factor. The respondent, a Lt.-Colonel in the Army, sought custody of his two minor children under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, after an order was passed against him for their maintenance. The trial court allowed the application without discussing the evidence, reasoning that the father was entitled to custody by right and was financially better positioned to care for the children. The High Court dismissed the mother’s appeal, accepting the father’s offer to admit the minors to a boarding school. The Supreme Court observed that neither the trial court nor the High Court examined the evidence on record and instead proceeded on extraneous considerations. The minors, who were thriving under their mother’s care, had clearly expressed their preference to remain with her. It was held that under Muslim personal law, the mother was entitled to custody (hizanat) of her male child until seven years of age and of her female child until puberty. However, custody decisions under the Guardians and Wards Act must prioritize the welfare of the minors over the personal rights of either parent. The Court noted that the father had contracted a second marriage and had other children to support, whereas the mother had remained dedicated to the upbringing of the minors. It was further held that a father’s financial superiority alone does not justify removing children from their mother’s care, particularly when they are already excelling in school. The High Court’s order, which placed the minors in a boarding school without considering their well-being or the appropriateness of separating a female child nearing puberty from her mother, was set aside. The Supreme Court emphasized that the welfare of the minors encompasses their material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being and is the sole determining factor in custody matters. Cited Cases: • Harbai v. Usman PLD 1963 Kar. 88 • Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana v. Zainab Begum PLD 1967 SC 402 • Rahimullah Choudhury v. Helali Begum 1974 SCMR 305 Disposition: Appeal allowed; custody of minors awarded to the mother.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890: ----S. 25---Guardianship and custody---Territorial jurisdiction---Determination of "residence" under Rule 6 of West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965---Effect of change in residence after filing of guardianship petition. Petitioner sought transfer of the guardianship petition filed by respondent/father in Multan to Sialkot, where she had moved after separation. Respondent argued that the petitioner initially resided in Multan, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Multan Guardian Court, and subsequently shifted to Sialkot for ulterior motives. Supreme Court held that under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, territorial jurisdiction in guardianship matters is determined by (i) where the cause of action arose, (ii) where the parties reside or last resided, and (iii) in dissolution or dower cases, where the wife ordinarily resides. Since the petitioner had lawful custody of the minors and moved to Sialkot due to financial constraints and personal safety concerns, the Family Court in Sialkot had jurisdiction. The mere fact that she initially responded to proceedings in Multan did not bar her from seeking transfer, as the primary consideration in custody matters is the welfare of minors. ----Cited Case: Major Muhammad Khalid Karim v. Mst. Saadia Yaqub (PLD 2012 SC 66) (Distinguished) (b) Family Courts Act, 1964: ----S. 5, S. 25-A---Exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts in custody and maintenance cases---Transfer of family suits from one district to another---High Court’s discretion. Under Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over custody and maintenance matters. High Court held that where multiple cases related to guardianship, maintenance, and dissolution are pending, they should be clubbed together to prevent multiplicity of litigation. Under Section 25-A of the Act, the High Court has broad discretion to transfer cases "notwithstanding anything contained in any law." Given that the petitioner had filed suits for maintenance and guardianship in Sialkot, requiring her to litigate separately in Multan would be against the principles of convenience and judicial economy. ----Cited Case: Mst. Sidra Hameed v. Syed Abdul Mateen (CMA No.100 of 2024) (c) Administration of Justice: ----Judicial discretion in transfer of cases---Convenience of mother in custody matters---Clubbed proceedings for expeditious disposal. Supreme Court emphasized that in custody and guardianship disputes, the convenience of the mother, especially when minors reside with her, is a significant factor in determining jurisdiction. As a result, the guardian petition filed by the respondent in Multan was transferred to Sialkot, where the petitioner’s guardian petition was pending. Additionally, the petitioner’s suit for maintenance was also transferred to the same court to ensure consistency and avoid inconvenience. ----Disposition: Transfer application allowed, guardian petition moved from Multan to Sialkot, maintenance suit also transferred to the same court.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ---Art. 199— Constitutional petition for recovery of minor children from the custody of their mother—Parental child abduction—Maintainability—Scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction—Petitioner (father) alleged that Respondent No.1 (mother) unlawfully removed the children from Canada to Pakistan in violation of a foreign court’s custody order—Petitioner sought enforcement of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980—Held, that Pakistan and Canada, although signatories to the Hague Convention, had not reciprocally acknowledged each other’s accession, rendering the Convention unenforceable between the two countries—High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, could intervene in international child abduction cases where the removal of a child was in violation of custodial arrangements, making the custody “without lawful authority”—However, in the present case, the Ontario Court’s order was temporary and without a final determination of the children’s best interests—Thus, the question of custody fell within the domain of the Family Court—Petitioner directed to pursue remedy before the Family Court—Constitutional petition disposed of accordingly. Cited Cases: • Louise Anne Fairley v. Sajjad Ahmed Rana PLD 2007 Lahore 300 • Mirjam Aberras Lehdeaho v. SHO, Police Station Chung, Lahore 2018 SCMR 427 • Nadia Perveen v. Almas Noreen PLD 2012 SC 758 (b) Family Law—Child Custody: ---Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (GWA), Ss. 7, 17 & 25— Welfare of minors—Best interests of the child—Jurisdiction of Family Court—Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 fraudulently obtained a Guardian Certificate from the Family Court despite the children’s presence in Canada—Petitioner challenged the order under S.12(2), CPC—Held, that the primary consideration in child custody matters is the welfare of the minors, which is a question of fact requiring judicial determination—The Ontario Court's order, being temporary and without prejudice, did not conclusively determine the children's welfare—Family Court was already seized of the matter, and intervention under constitutional jurisdiction was not warranted—High Court directed the Family Court to expedite the proceedings and decide the matter within two months—Petitioner granted reasonable parenting time during the pendency of litigation. Cited Cases: • J v. C (an infant) [1970] AC 668 • Shaista Habib v. Muhammad Arif Habib (Civil Petition No. 3801 of 2022) (c) Fraudulent Obtaining of Custody Orders: ---Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (GWA), S. 7—Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), S. 476— Fraud and misrepresentation—Legal consequences—Respondent No.1 allegedly misrepresented facts before the Family Court to obtain a Guardian Certificate while the children were in Canada—High Court directed the Family Court to conduct an inquiry under S.476, Cr.P.C. against Respondents No.1 and 2 and other involved individuals—Fraudulent procurement of custody orders was a serious matter requiring thorough investigation and legal consequences. (d) Habeas Corpus and Parental Custody Disputes: ---Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), S. 491—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199(1)(b)(i)— Scope of constitutional jurisdiction—Habeas corpus in parental custody disputes—Held, that constitutional jurisdiction for habeas corpus petitions in child custody matters should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances where no other adequate remedy exists—The proper forum for deciding permanent custody is the Family Court—High Court, however, may intervene in cases of abduction, illegal detention, or immediate danger to the child—Petition in the present case did not meet these criteria, as custody proceedings were already pending in the Family Court—High Court declined to exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction but ensured interim arrangements for parenting access. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Javed Umrao v. Uzma Vahid 1988 SCMR 1891 • Qurat-ul-Ain v. Station House Officer 2024 SCMR 486 (e) International Child Abduction: ---Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980— Applicability in Pakistan—Pakistan’s accession to the Hague Convention did not automatically make it applicable to all signatory countries—Reciprocal acceptance between Pakistan and Canada was absent, making the Convention unenforceable—Even if applicable, the Hague Convention does not determine custody rights but aims to restore the pre-abduction status quo—In non-Convention cases, courts must apply domestic laws prioritizing the child's welfare—High Court reiterated that foreign custody orders do not automatically override domestic jurisdiction—Petitioner directed to seek relief under Pakistani family law. Cited Cases: • Office of the Children's Lawyer v. Balev 2018 SCC 16 • In re J (a child) (FC) [2005] UKHL 40 ---Disposition: Petition disposed of with the following directions: (i) Petitioner to pursue remedies before the Family Court, Lahore. (ii) Family Court to initiate proceedings under S.476, Cr.P.C. against Respondents No.1 and 2 for fraudulently obtaining custody orders. (iii) Family Court to conduct proceedings on a day-to-day basis and conclude them within two months. (iv) Petitioner granted reasonable access and parenting time until the Family Court decides custody. (v) Neither party shall take the children out of the Family Court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.

Summary: Custody of minor conferred to real parents in the wake of contest by adopted parent. (a) Guardianship & Custody – Adoption Not a Basis to Override Natural Parental Rights – Paramount Consideration of Welfare of Minor: The right of a biological parent, particularly the mother, to seek custody of a minor remains paramount unless it is established that the welfare of the child demands otherwise. In the present case, the minor's biological mother challenged an informal adoption arrangement, asserting that she was coerced into relinquishing custody under the condition of daily access to the child, which was later denied. The Lahore High Court reaffirmed that mere long-term custody with non-biological guardians does not override the preferential right of natural parents in matters of custody, particularly when the minor is of tender age. (b) Adoption in Islamic Law – No Change in Parentage – Rights of Adopted Child: Islamic law recognizes adoption but does not allow alteration of the child’s biological lineage. The Holy Quran (Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:4) mandates that adopted children must retain their biological parentage. The Court held that recording incorrect parentage in the minor’s birth certificate was an act contrary to Islamic injunctions, reaffirming that an adopted child can inherit only from biological parents and not from adoptive parents. (c) Legal Status of Adoption in Pakistan – Absence of Statutory Framework: Pakistan lacks a specific statutory framework governing adoption. Although Islamic jurisprudence acknowledges adoption, it does not equate adoptive relationships with biological parentage. The Court noted that while Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act, 2004 (PD&NC Act) provides limited protection for orphans and abandoned children, there is no comprehensive legal mechanism regulating voluntary adoption arrangements. The Court recommended legislative intervention to establish a legal framework governing adoption, guardianship, and the rights of adopted children. (d) Jurisdiction of Family Court – Preference for Natural Parents in Custody Matters: Custody of a minor primarily falls within the jurisdiction of Family Courts under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Family Court’s findings, which were upheld on appeal, determined that informal adoption does not displace the natural custody rights of a biological parent unless welfare considerations dictate otherwise. The Court reiterated the principle that custody should ordinarily remain with the natural mother, particularly when the child is in tender age, unless compelling welfare concerns suggest otherwise. (e) Procedural Requirements for Adoption – Need for a Guardian Certificate: The Court observed that in the absence of a statutory adoption framework, guardianship of a minor should be secured through proper legal procedures, including obtaining a guardianship certificate from the Guardian Court. Informal adoption without formal legal recognition does not create enforceable custodial rights against biological parents. (f) Interference in Concurrent Findings of Fact by High Court in Constitutional Jurisdiction: The Lahore High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Additional District Judge, reaffirming that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution does not extend to reevaluating findings of fact unless gross misreading of evidence or jurisdictional defects are established. The Court found no legal infirmity in the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the petition. ----Disposition: Writ Petition Dismissed. Custody of the minor restored to the biological mother. Recommendation made for legislative intervention to regulate adoption law in Pakistan.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) – Ss. 17 & 25 Custody of minor children—Father’s claim against mother—Welfare of the minor as paramount consideration. The primary question for determination was whether a father, as against the mother, was entitled to the custody of his minor son who had attained the age of seven years under Muslim personal law and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The father sought custody of both children, alleging the mother’s mental incapacity and lack of independent means. The mother contended that the claim was a counterblast to litigation she initiated for maintenance and dower. The Guardian Judge initially ruled that the son, having attained the age of seven, should be given to the father, while the daughter should remain with the mother unless the father could prove the mother’s mental unfitness. However, evidence showed that although the mother had previously suffered from schizophrenia, she had recovered and had been successfully raising both children for nine years without any evidence of neglect or harm to their well-being. The Full Bench held that, in the absence of a universally accepted rule on the custody age under Muslim law, courts were not bound by divergent opinions in Islamic jurisprudence and could exercise independent reasoning (ijtihad) to determine the matter in the best interests of the minor. It was found that the father had never contributed to the children's maintenance nor had he maintained contact with them for nearly a decade. Given the prolonged absence of the father, the acrimonious litigation between the parents, and the likelihood of emotional distress to the minors if removed from their mother, the court held that it was in the best interest of both children to remain in the custody of their mother. The father’s appeal was dismissed, and the mother’s appeal was allowed, securing her custody of both minors. Cited Cases: • Mst. Rashida Begum v. Shahab Din PLD 1962 Lah. 162 • Muhammad Bakhsh v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima PLD 1958 Pesh. 26 • Chand Bibi v. Bulbullah • Khanamji v. Farman Ali Disposition: Appeal of the mother allowed; appeal of the father dismissed.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)---- ----S. 25----Custody of minors----Welfare of minor as the paramount consideration----Petitioner (biological mother) and her mother (maternal grandmother) separately applied for guardianship of two minor girls after the demise of their father----Respondents, paternal grandmother and paternal aunt of the minors, contested the guardianship and obtained an ex parte order for custody from the Guardian Judge, Gujrat----Guardian Judge, Gilgit, later appointed the maternal grandmother as guardian, which was overturned by the Judicial Commissioner, directing custody to respondents----Held, that welfare of minors is the supreme consideration, encompassing both material and spiritual aspects----Respondent No. 1 (paternal grandmother) was an elderly woman with no source of income and had failed to disclose details of the deceased father’s assets, indicating a potential conflict of interest----Respondent No. 2 (paternal aunt) never actively sought guardianship and did not record a statement in court----The real mother, despite remarriage, was well-educated, financially stable, and capable of providing better care for the minors----Under Islamic personal law, maternal custody is preferred, and the mother ranks higher than the paternal grandmother and aunt in guardianship matters----Custody of minors granted to their biological mother. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 114 & O.XLVII, R.1----Review of judgment----Scope----Review sought against order granting custody of minors to the paternal grandmother and paternal aunt----Judicial Commissioner's order failed to prioritize the minors' welfare and overlooked crucial evidence, including the deceased father's conversion to the Shia sect, which aligned with the mother’s faith----Sectarian considerations deemed irrelevant when both parents belonged to Islam----Review allowed, and previous orders set aside in favor of the biological mother. Cited Cases: • Dr. Nazrul Islam Khan v. Begum Hamida Khatun (1969 DLC 240) • Tassadiq Hussain Shah v. Mst. Surraya Begum (1980 CLC 1802) • Mst. Rafiqan v. Jallaluddin (1983 SCMR 481) • Mst. Sardaran v. Mst. Majeedan Begum (1982 SCMR 1100) • Ghulam Akram v. Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah (PLD 1986 SC (AJ&K) 56) Disposition: Review petition accepted. Custody of minors granted to their biological mother.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) ----Ss. 7 & 25---Custody of minor---Paramount consideration of welfare of minor---Father as natural guardian---Scope---Held, that although father is the natural guardian of a minor, yet his entitlement to custody is not automatic---Court while appointing a guardian or deciding custody is bound to examine whether such appointment serves the welfare of the minor, which is the sole and paramount consideration under S.7 of the Act---Factors such as capacity to maintain, moral character, conduct, and fulfillment of parental obligations are relevant, though not exhaustive, and each case is to be decided on its own facts. (b) Muhammadan Law ----Paras 352 & 354---Right of Hizanat---Effect of second marriage of mother---Held, that under Muhammadan Law, mother is entitled to custody (Hizanat) of her female child until puberty, but such right ceases if she contracts a second marriage with a person who is a stranger and not within the prohibited degree---Upon such disqualification, custody ordinarily vests in the father---However, this rule is not absolute and may be departed from in exceptional circumstances where welfare of minor so demands. (c) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) ----S. 7---Welfare of minor---Departure from rule of Hizanat---Held, that Courts in Pakistan have consistently held that rule of Hizanat may be departed from where exceptional circumstances exist, but such departure must be justified solely on the touchstone of welfare of the minor---In absence of exceptional circumstances, remarriage of mother with a stranger disentitles her from custody. (d) Evidence---Maintenance of minor---Effect on custody---Held, that allegation of father’s failure to provide maintenance must be supported by evidence---Where evidence on record establishes that father had been providing maintenance and such assertion was not effectively challenged in cross-examination, plea that father is disentitled to custody on account of non-maintenance cannot be sustained. (e) Constitutional Jurisdiction ----Art. 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan---Interference by Supreme Court---Held, that where findings of Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and application of settled legal principles relating to welfare of minor, Supreme Court would not interfere unless illegality, perversity or impropriety is shown. Cited Case: • Mst. Nazir v. Hafiz Ghulam Mustafa etc. 1981 SCMR 200 Disposition: Civil Appeal dismissed; custody of minor Najla Bugti upheld in favour of father; impugned judgments of the Family Court, Appellate Court and High Court maintained; no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (1890): ----Section 25 The Petitioner challenged the decision regarding the custody of the minor, claiming that the Respondent No.1, being an 80-year-old woman with health issues, was incapable of providing proper care for the minor. The court emphasized that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody cases. While the Respondent No.1, as the maternal grandmother, had a preferential right to custody, this was subject to the welfare of the child. Held, the Court observed that the Petitioner, as the natural guardian, was in a better position to care for the minor, given the Respondent No.1's health issues and dependency on her daughter for assistance. The court restored the custody of the minor to the Petitioner. ----Cited Cases: • Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem (2014 SCMR 343) • Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen (2022 SCMR 2123) • Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge Attock (2004 SCMR 1839) (b) Welfare of the Minor: ----Custody Decisions Based on Welfare The Court reiterated that custody decisions must always prioritize the welfare of the minor, considering factors such as emotional, physical, and educational well-being. While the maternal grandmother had a preferential right to custody under Muslim Personal Law, this was not an absolute criterion. The Court considered the father’s ability to provide a stable and secure home, his financial capacity, and his willingness to care for the child. Held, the Petitioner’s capacity to provide for the minor’s well-being outweighed the Respondent No.1’s preferential right under Muslim law, as the welfare of the child was better served by the father. ----Cited Cases: • Mst. Seema Choudhary v. Ahsan Ashraf Sheikh (PLD 2003 SC 877) • Shaista Habib v. Muhammad Arif Habib (PLD 2024 SC 629) (c) Appeal and Judicial Review: ----Erroneous Judgments and Misreading of Evidence The Court found that the Additional District Judge had grossly misread the evidence and wrongly interfered with the well-reasoned findings of the Senior Civil Judge. The Court invoked its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, observing that the Appellate Court had exercised jurisdiction in an arbitrary manner without proper consideration of the facts. Held, the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge was set aside, and the decision of the Senior Civil Judge (Family Division) was restored. ----Cited Cases: • Hammad Ali Khan v. Mst. Sadia Akbar (2024 MLD 1445) -----Disposition: Both writ petitions were allowed. The consolidated judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, and the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Family Executing Court were set aside. The judgment of the Senior Civil Judge (Family Division), Rawalpindi, was restored. The District Judge, Rawalpindi, was directed to investigate the actions of the Family Executing Court regarding its misconduct.