Summary: (a) Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 ----Sec. 25 Custody of minor---Paramount consideration of welfare---Preference of minor. In matters concerning the custody of minors under Sec. 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration. While courts may consider factors such as remarriage of the parents, financial stability, and the character of the proposed guardian, these factors are subordinate to the minor's welfare. In the present case, the minor, a 12-year-old girl, expressed her intelligent and unequivocal preference to remain with her mother, which was given weight by the High Court. Courts cannot rely on speculative observations unsupported by evidence, such as assumptions about parental remarriage impacting a child's upbringing. ---- Cited Cases: Shaista Habib v. Muhammad Arif Habib (PLD 2024 SC 629) Mst. Qurat-ul-Ain v. Station House Officer (2024 SCMR 486) Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad (PLD 2020 SC 508) ---- (b) Muhammadan Law Custody of minor---Applicability of Muhammadan Law as statutory authority. The Federal Shariat Court has clarified that Muhammadan Law, as outlined by D.F. Mullah, is a reference text and does not constitute binding statutory law. Courts cannot draw presumptions of disqualification for custody based solely on provisions cited from this text. ---- Cited Case: Messrs Najaat Welfare Foundation v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 FSC 1) ---- (c) Financial capacity of mother Poverty of a mother---Not a bar to custody. The financial condition of a mother does not disentitle her from retaining custody of a minor. The welfare of the minor takes precedence over financial considerations, and the father’s financial superiority does not override the mother’s suitability as a guardian. ---- Cited Cases: Mir Bat Khan v. Mst. Sherin Bibi (2019 SCMR 520) Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad (2004 SCMR 821) (d) Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 ----Sec. 25 Minor’s preference in custody---Intelligent preference given weight. When a minor is old enough to express an intelligent preference, the court may consider their wishes in determining custody. In the present case, the minor demonstrated maturity and confidently expressed her preference to live with her mother, which aligned with her welfare and was thus upheld by the court. ---- Cited Case: Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem (2014 SCMR 343) (e) Guardianship decisions Speculative reasoning and extraneous considerations---Role in guardianship decisions. Courts must base guardianship decisions on evidence and legal principles, avoiding speculative assumptions or extraneous considerations, such as personal biases about remarriage. The High Court found that lower courts erred by speculating about the mother’s remarriage negatively influencing the minor while overlooking similar facts about the father. ---- Cited Case: Mst. Nighat Firdous v. Khadim Hussain (1998 SCMR 1593)

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) ----Ss. 17 & 25---Custody of minor---Welfare of the minor as the paramount consideration---Held, in deciding custody matters under Ss. 17 & 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the fundamental consideration is the welfare and betterment of the minor, superseding all other claims, including those of the natural guardian---Father is recognized as the natural guardian under Muhammadan Law, but this right is not absolute and remains subject to the best interests of the child---The court must evaluate the minor’s age, sex, capacity of the proposed guardian, and any exceptional circumstances before determining custody. Cited Cases: • Khan Muhammad v. Mst. Surayya Bibi, 2008 SCMR 480 • Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock, 2004 SCMR 1839 • Mst. Talat Nasira v. Mst. Munawar Sultana, 1985 SCMR 1367 (b) Custody of Minor & Parental Responsibilities ----Mother’s right of Hizanat---Effect of father residing abroad---Held, in the instant case, the petitioner (father) was settled abroad and had filed the guardianship petition through a special attorney, indicating a lack of direct parental involvement---Courts consider love, affection, and active care for the child as critical factors in deciding custody---Where the mother provides proper care and upbringing, and has not remarried, the minor’s welfare is presumed to be better served with the mother. Cited Cases: • Mst. Rubia Jilani v. Zahoor Akhtar Raja, 1991 SCMR 1834 • Mst. Firdous Iqbal v. Shifaat Ali, 2000 SCMR 838 (c) Effect of Mother's Second Marriage on Custody ----Disentitlement from custody---Exception to general rule---Held, while Muhammadan Law suggests that a mother may lose custody upon remarriage, this is not an absolute rule and must be evaluated in the context of the child’s welfare---If the mother’s remarriage does not negatively affect the minor’s upbringing, custody may still be granted to her, particularly where the father fails to demonstrate superior care or involvement. Cited Cases: • Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem, 2014 SCMR 343 • Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen, 2022 SCMR 2123 (d) Role of Economic Status in Custody Determinations ----Poverty as a ground for denying custody---Not a decisive factor---Held, financial constraints alone cannot be a reason to deprive a mother of custody, as courts prioritize emotional and psychological well-being over material wealth---The ability to provide a nurturing and stable environment is of greater importance than financial superiority. Cited Case: • Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad, 2004 SCMR 821 (e) Modification of Custody Arrangements ----Right of minors to choose custody upon attaining maturity---Held, while the mother was granted custody, the arrangement was not absolute---The minors, upon reaching 14 years of age, would have the right to decide whether they wished to reside with their father---Courts retain the power to modify custody arrangements if circumstances change. Cited Case: • 2007 CLC 1403 Disposition: Petition dismissed. Leave to appeal refused. Custody arrangement affirmed, subject to reconsideration when minors attain 14 years of age.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Saadia Khalil, filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of her minor son, Rayyan Muhammad Yamin, born in the United States on October 28, 2015. The father (Respondent No. 3) was proceeded ex-parte, and the custody was granted to the petitioner by the Guardian Court in Lahore. However, the Guardian Court refused to grant the mother general leave to take the minor outside of its territorial jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal with the Appellate Court, which upheld the Guardian Court’s refusal, leading her to file this writ petition. --- Issues: 1) Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to allow the petitioner to take the minor out of the country for educational purposes. ---2) Whether the refusal to grant general leave to remove the minor from the jurisdiction was justified in the absence of the father's involvement. ---3) Whether Section 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, should restrict the movement of the minor under the given circumstances. --- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Lahore High Court held that the welfare of the minor is paramount and that the refusal of both the Guardian Court and the Appellate Court to permit the petitioner to take her minor son to the United States was not justifiable, given the father’s indifference to the child’s welfare. It was reasoned that Section 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which restricts removing a ward from jurisdiction without leave, is aimed at protecting the non-custodial parent's rights, but since the father had not shown any interest, the provision should not apply rigidly in this case. The court cited precedents where similar cases allowed minors to move abroad when it was in their best interest, particularly for education. The petitioner was allowed to take her son to the United States for educational purposes, with the condition that she informs the Guardian Court of any change in the child's residence or educational institution. -----Citations/Precedents Dr. Aisha Yousuf vs. Khalid Muneer and 2 Others (PLD 2012 Sindh 166) Scherazade Jamali vs. Hisham Gillani and Others (PLD 2018 Sindh 377) Mst. Sidra Asif vs. Additional District Judge and 2 Others (2019 YLR 2692) Raja Muhammad Owais vs. Mst. Nazia Jabeen and Others (2022 SCMR 2123) Gul Mina Afridi vs. Rana Abdul Kareem & Others (C.P. No. S-411 of 2022) Smt. Rakshitha vs. Sri C.C. Shashikumar (Karnataka High Court WP No. 892 of 2023) Watson vs. Watson (Aug 03, 2004, 2004 Neb. App. LEXIS 190)

Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Petition of Father dismissed, as well as G&W court and Appellate Court. Minors remain with Grand mother (nani )after death of wife.)

Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Petition allowed, female minor custody handed over to mother and father has right to meet minors and approach G&W Court . ) Habeas Corpus--custody of minors--In view of the statement of the parties, the petitioners are directed to furnish an indemnity bond of Rs. 200,000/- before the Nazir of this Court for the aforesaid purpose and in the meanwhile petitioners shall not take away the custody of minors out of the jurisdiction of the learned Guardian and Wards Court without intimation to the concerned Court. However, the respondent-father shall have visitation rights in the intervening period subject to tentative payment of maintenance of the minors @ Rs.3000/- per month for each minor and maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month for petitioner-mother till final adjudication by the learned trial Court. On the aforesaid proposition, I am fortified by the decision rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Humayun Hassan v. Arslan Humayun and another, PLD 2013 SC 557.

Summary: When an appeal lies against an order on temporary custody passed under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (G&W Section 25 allowed In Fever of Father Maintained by high Court as after death of his wife not remarried . )

Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 ( Appeal Dismissed against interim order of Section 12G&W.)

Summary: [Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Father writ of Habeas Corpus against Grand mother of minor dismissed with direction to approach G&W Court . )] Habeas Corpus directing the respondent-police officials to produce his minor son namely Master Zohan Faraz aged about 02 years to enable him to take his custody--I am of the view that the purpose of filing this petition is served as the minor has been produced before this Court; and, prima-facie the minor is no more in illegal custody as discussed in the preceding paragraph. Primarily, in the cases, concerning the custody of a child, this Court is not required to go into the intricacies/technicalities of the matter in constitutional jurisdiction and should confine its findings to the extent of the welfare of the child/minor which is a paramount consideration and it is for the learned Guardian and Wards Court to take appropriate measures in this regard.

Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Mother filed 491 CRPC dismissed By ADJ ,High Court Sat aside and Ordered to hand over custody to mother .)