Summary: Court of Protection appointed petitioner as guardian of respondent for his being mentally incapacitated person. Court of Protection on the application by respondent, got him medically examined and recalled its earlier order by canceling guardian certificate. Court of Protection, after following procedure, reached the conclusion that respondent was not mentally disordered person and he did not suffer from any psychiatric illness, therefore, the Court had rightly passed order for setting aside the order of appointment of guardian and the guardianship certificate. Even if respondent had earlier been wrongly declared to be a mentally disordered person, the same procedure could be adopted by the Court of Protection to recall and set aside the order. High Court declined to take any exception to recall of the orders by the Court of Protection. Petitioner having not availed alternate remedy, Constitutional petition was not maintainable.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------Ss.17 & 25---Custody of minor---Application for custody of minor was filed by mother---Welfare of minor---Financial status of mother---Scope---Father contended that mother of theminors had not sufficient resources to look after the minors properly and both the courts belowhad wrongly granted custody of the minors to mother---Validity---Section 17 of the Guardiansand Wards Act, 1890 stipulated that the right of custody of minor was not an absolute right,rather the same was always subject to the welfare of the minor---Record revealed that motheralso filed an application for interim custody and during the proceedings the minors wereproduced before the Family Court where they stated that they loved their father and did notwant to go to their mother because she was careless about them and used to beat them---Recordalso showed that during cross-examination of mother she admitted that after divorce she wasliving with her brothers and was dependant, having no independent source of income---HighCourt showed that mother was not able to look after the minors properly whereas Father wasa Government Servant and was in a better position to look after the children who were gettingeducation in a reputed school---High Court set aside impugned orders and judgments of thetwo courts below----Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Father Petition allowed and Sat aside Judgment G&W & Appellate Court .Mother has right to meet minors .)

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 ----S. 7; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 187----Guardianship of minors; Ex parte order; Interim custody. The father, as a natural guardian, is not barred from seeking a declaration of guardianship under S. 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. However, such proceedings must adhere to principles of bona fides and fairness. Ex parte orders obtained through manipulation, concealment of facts, and procedural irregularities are liable to be set aside. In this case, the father used guardianship proceedings to retain custody of minors unlawfully and against their will. The Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction under Art. 187 of the Constitution to do complete justice by setting aside the ex parte order and granting interim custody to the mother. Reliance placed on Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem (2014 SCMR 343). (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 491, 561----Habeas corpus; Jurisdiction of High Court; Custody of minors. The High Court retains jurisdiction under S. 491, Cr.PC to grant interim relief in matters involving the custody of minors even if proceedings are pending before the Guardian Court. In exceptional cases, where the welfare and best interest of minors are at risk, the High Court can intervene to restore custody to the lawful guardian pending adjudication by the Guardian Court. This jurisdiction is supplementary and not ousted by the Guardians and Wards Act. Reliance placed on Ahmed Sami v. Saadia Ahmed (1996 SCMR 268) and Muhammad Khalil-ur-Rehman v. Mst. Shabana Rahman (PLD 1995 SC 633). (c) Parental Jurisdiction ----Best interest and welfare of minors----Deception and improper custody. The welfare of minors is paramount in custody matters. Courts must carefully evaluate circumstances where custody is retained through deceit or manipulation. In this case, the father misled the children and mother, used legal proceedings for improper purposes, and restricted the children's movement, causing emotional trauma. The Court considered the mature and informed wishes of the minors, emphasizing their educational, emotional, and social needs. (d) High Court Jurisdiction and Procedural Obligations ----Failure to determine wishes of minors----Undue haste in deciding habeas corpus petitions. The High Court erred in abdicating its jurisdiction by dismissing the habeas corpus petition without thoroughly ascertaining the wishes of the minors or considering their welfare. Courts must exercise their jurisdiction responsibly, particularly in cases involving minors, by balancing procedural fairness with the immediate welfare of the children. Reliance placed on Shaukat Masih v. Farhat Parkash (2015 SCMR 731). Cited Cases: Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem (2014 SCMR 343) Ahmed Sami v. Saadia Ahmed (1996 SCMR 268) Muhammad Khalil-ur-Rehman v. Mst. Shabana Rahman (PLD 1995 SC 633) Shaukat Masih v. Farhat Parkash (2015 SCMR 731)

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S.12---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.14(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Interim custody of suckling minor---Review of visitation hours---Scope---Petitioner/mothercontended that both Courts below had failed to consider that it would be hard to bring the minorof 1Ω years of age to the court twice a month for meeting with the father---Respondent/fathercontended that meetings with minor in tender age was necessary to develop affiliation with thefather---Validity---While passing the impugned order, the Guardian Court had exercised hisjurisdiction vested in it and nothing in the said order was contrary to law and beyond hisjurisdiction---Parties also confirmed that said order had been complied with and since then themeetings were being conducted---Order passed by Guardian Court was interim in nature andconstitutional petition would not lie before the High Court---Section 14(3) of Family Courts Act,1964 showed that no appeal or revision would lie against interim order passed by the FamilyCourt---Family Courts Act, 1964 had explicitly barred the remedy of appeal or revision againstsuch an order, therefore, in case a constitutional petition was entertained against such order, thesame would amount to circumventing the intention of the legislature and frustrating the expressprovision of law---No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned order passedby the Appellate Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S. 12---Visitation rights of father of minor---Scope---Court premises as meeting place ofthe minor with the father---Effect---Welfare of minor---Scope---Petitioner/father contendedthat Family Court had rightly allowed him to take his minor daughter to his house on (certain)special days---Respondent/Mother contended that Appellate Court had rightly set asideschedule arranged by Trial Court as father should meet minor within court premises---Validity---Father might disentitle himself to custody on account of his conduct but father, in the presentcase, was regularly depositing the maintenance allowance of his minor daughter as fixed by thecourt---Minor daughter in her tender age required love and care of her parents; deprivation ofany of them would have negative effect not only on her mental growth but would also affecther intellectual development---Neither the minor nor the father could be deprived of companyof each other---Father being natural guardian was not only required to participate in theupbringing of the minor but should also develop love, bondage and affinity with her, to achievesaid purpose---Court was to facilitate a congenial , homely and friendly environment andreasonable visitation schedule---Office of the Guardian Judge or office of Civil Nazir of theCourt, for the said purpose, was neither conducive nor effective which lacked proper facilitiesand arrangements, and was not comparable to a homely environment---Meeting in Courtpremises could not serve the purpose of meeting, and it was not in the interest or welfare of theminor to hold meeting in the Court premises---Meetings of the minor with the father, werepreferably to be held at the residence of the father---High Court set aside the impugned orderpassed by the Appellate Court and re-scheduled the more flexible arrangements of meeting ofminor with the father on special days and on every Saturday of the calendar month witharrangement that Civil Nazir or a bailiff be deputed by the Trial Court to collect the minor fromthe residence of the mother at 10:00 a.m. along with a representative of the father, take her toresidence arranged by the father, and thereafter along with representative of mother collect herfrom the father on the same day and drop her back at the residence of mother---Sucharrangement would remain in vogue till the minor daughter was five years of age or admittedto school---Constitutional Petition was disposed off accordingly.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S. 25---Custody of minors---Principles---Guardian application by the mother with prayer todirect the father to take custody of the minors from her---Marriage between the spouses wasdissolved---Guardian judge dismissed the application of mother---Mother contended that shehad soleminised nikah and rukhsati was going to be taken place and she would not be inposition to look after the minors properly---Held, that while determining the custody of femaleward, the question of chastity to be jealously guarded if the mother of female daughter hadcontracted second marriage with stranger, she had lost her right of hizanat---Father beingnatural guardian of his minor/minors, Court had to be satisfied about welfare of minor/minorswhile appointing the father as guardian---Admittedly, the mother had contracted secondmarriage and it was not possible for her to take the custody of minors with her and father of theminors being in good financial position could easily look after the minors properly rather thanthe mother---Mother was entitled to the custody of her male child until he had completed theage of seven years and of her female child until she had attained puberty and the right continuedthough she was divorced by the father of child unless she remarried, in which case the custodybelonged to the father---High Court observed that, in the present case, the male minor wasabout 13 years old and after Nikah with a stranger the mother would loose her right of hizanatto the extent of female minor---Order passed by the Family Copurt was set aside, constitutionalpettion was allowed accordingly.Mst. Nazir v. Hafiz Ghulam Mustafa and others 1981 SCMR 200; Shabana Naz v.Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343 and para 352 of the Muhammadan Law ref.

Summary: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VIII of 1961)------Ss. 6, 8 & 9--Guardian and Wards Act, (VIII of 1890), S. 25--Constitution of Pakistan,1973, Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowryarticles, and maintenance allowance--Partly decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Petitionercontracted second marriage and filed guardian application--Dismissed--Challenge to--It is anestablished principle of law that father is a natural guardian of his minor child/children, butindeed Court has to be satisfied while appointing father as a guardian that welfare of minorlies in fact that he be appointed as a guardian and custody of minor be delivered accordingly--Mother is entitled to custody (Hizanat) of her male child until he has completed age of sevenyears and of her female child until she has attained puberty and right continues though she isdivorced by father of his child unless she marries a second husband in which case custodybelongs to father--In instant case, this para fully attracted because admittedly, minorAhmedullah is about 13 years old and after Nikah with a stranger she loses her right ofHizanat to extent of minor Bibi Marium

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S. 25---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.100---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Alternate and efficaciousremedy---Recovery of minor child---Execution of decree passed by Guardian Court---Custody ofminor was decided in favour of father---Father filed execution of decree but in response toprocess, mother of minor did not produce him before the court---Father sought production ofminor under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and to get his name placed on Exit ControlList---Validity---Held, adequate powers were available with Executing Court to implement orderof Family Court---In presence of remedy available under the law, i.e., Family Courts Act, 1964and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, High Court declined to exercise its extraordinaryjurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution---Executing Court was fully empowered to issuedirections for placing name of minor on Exit Control List if so required---Executing Court wasfully empowered to execute the decree passed by the court competent jurisdiction---Father couldapply to the Executing Court for redressal of his grievance and also for implementation of thedecree---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S. 25---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.100---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Alternate and efficaciousremedy---Recovery of minor child---Execution of decree passed by Guardian Court---Custody ofminor was decided in favour of father---Father filed execution of decree but in response toprocess, mother of minor did not produce him before the court---Father sought production ofminor under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and to get his name placed on Exit ControlList---Validity---Held, adequate powers were available with Executing Court to implement orderof Family Court---In presence of remedy available under the law, i.e., Family Courts Act, 1964and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, High Court declined to exercise its extraordinaryjurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution---Executing Court was fully empowered to issuedirections for placing name of minor on Exit Control List if so required---Executing Court wasfully empowered to execute the decree passed by the court competent jurisdiction---Father couldapply to the Executing Court for redressal of his grievance and also for implementation of thedecree---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.