Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act, 1964 – Ss. 5, 17 – Maintenance of child – Scope and quantum – Principles derived from Islamic jurisprudence and case law - Held, father is under a continuous legal and religious obligation to maintain his children regardless of the marital status with the mother or custodial arrangements – This obligation is derived from the immutable bond of paternity and not contingent upon cohabitation or custody – Cited with approval: Humayun Hassan v. Arsalan Humayun (PLD 2013 SC 557); Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, Sections 369–370. (b) Islamic law – Nafaqah (maintenance) – Determination of amount – Considerations of child's needs and father's financial capacity - Held, maintenance must include all reasonable expenses essential for physical, mental, and emotional development of the child, including food, shelter, healthcare, education, and social needs – The father’s income and earning capacity must be weighed, but mere unemployment is not a valid defense if the father is physically and mentally capable of earning – Hanafi position noted: obligation to earn subsists even if wealth is not currently possessed – Cited texts: Hedaya, Ameer Ali on Mahomedan Law, Fyzee’s Outlines of Muhammadan Law. (c) Family law – Custody and maintenance – Distinction – Termination of marriage does not absolve father from child support - Held, the obligation to maintain a child continues post-divorce and is independent of the wife’s right to maintenance – Such duty is not diminished if the child is in the hizanat of the mother – Ethically and legally untenable to link maintenance with custody. (d) Constitutional petition – Scope of interference – Concurrent findings – No material evidence produced to displace factual findings - Held, petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence (e.g., salary slips, income tax returns) to disprove the findings of the lower courts regarding his financial ability – Petitioner’s claim of limited income and remarriage not substantiated – High Court rightly dismissed the constitutional petition as no jurisdictional error or illegality found in concurrent decisions. (e) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Art. 185(3) – Leave to appeal – Principles – Concurrent findings of fact by trial, appellate, and High Court – No interference warranted Held, Supreme Court declined to grant leave as no question of law of public importance was made out, and the findings of the courts below were duly supported by the record and legal principles. Disposition: Leave to appeal declined. Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — S. 25 — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3) — Custody of minor — Mediation — Modification of High Court judgment in terms of mediated settlement Best interests of child — Co-parenting model through mediation — Settlement given legal effect by Supreme Court — Dispute pertained to permanent custody of minor girl, Meher Fatima, after the death of her mother — Guardian Court and Appellate Court had awarded custody to maternal grandmother (petitioner No.2), with visitation rights to father (respondent No.1) — High Court set aside concurrent findings and granted custody to biological father, holding that third-party caregivers cannot be appointed guardians if a biological parent is alive and not declared unfit — Petitioners challenged this in Supreme Court — Court invoked Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified by Pakistan) and directed parties to mediate, emphasizing that the child’s best interest is paramount — Mediation facilitated by an accredited mediator, Mr. Umar Farooq, resulted in amicable settlement on custody, visitation, education, and future cooperation — Settlement agreement dated 17.06.2025 filed and adopted by the Court — Petition disposed of accordingly; High Court judgment modified only to the extent inconsistent with the settlement. Judicial Observation: Mediation in custody matters serves as a participatory, child-sensitive mechanism and a viable alternative to adversarial litigation — Emotional wellbeing of a minor cannot be preserved through litigation alone. (b) Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2017 — Confidentiality in mediation — Scope and limitations on mediator’s report Confidentiality preserved — Mediator’s role clarified — Legal recognition of mediated outcomes — Mediator’s role was limited to facilitation; no adjudication to be made by mediator — Mediator was directed to observe complete confidentiality and report only on: (i) refusal to mediate or intentional delay; and (ii) settlement proposals exchanged, with express consent — Held, such structured mediation processes are aligned with substantive justice and international child rights jurisprudence — Office directed to transmit Supreme Court’s order and settlement to Guardian Court for decree to be drawn in terms thereof. Final Disposition: Petition disposed of in terms of settlement agreement dated 17.06.2025. Judgment of High Court modified to the extent inconsistent with said agreement. Guardian Court to draw decree in accordance therewith.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 17 & 25---Custody of the minor---Preferential right of real parents over an adoptive parent---Minor adopted by her paternal uncle---Uncle and his wife subsequently separating---Custody of minor retained by wife of uncle after separation---Plea of love and affection raised by non-parent for keeping custody of minor---Welfare of the minor in custody matters, significance of---Mother's right of 'hizanat'---Brief facts of the case were that the custody of the minor, was initially handed over to her paternal uncle/respondent No. 4 (adoptive parent), who was married at the time to the petitioner---This transfer of custody was formalized through an adoption deed, executed by the minor's biological father/ respondent No. 5, whereby it was stipulated that the custody of the minor would remain with the uncle and none else---The petitioner, as wife of respondent No. 4 (adoptive parent) at that time, became the primary caregiver of the minor---The minor resided with the petitioner and respondent No. 4 (adoptive parent) for a brief period until their marriage dissolved---Despite the divorce, the petitioner continued to retain the custody of the minor---The biological mother of the minor then sought custody which was allowed by the Guardian Judge and the decision was upheld on appeal---The question for determination before the High Court was as to "whether the petitioner (wife of adoptive parent) or the real parents were entitled to custody of the minor in terms of her welfare"---Held: Though adoption is permitted under principle of Islamic laws but compelling circumstances, under which adoption was imperative, were required to be established---As per admission by the petitioner for not having any blood relationship with the minor but still claiming her custody, in presence of her real parents, has a greater threshold and standards to be qualified by the petitioner for grant of her claim---The parentage of the minor was an admitted fact---A careful perusal of the petition under S. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the "Act 1890") filed by respondent No.3 reveals that the custody of the minor was handed over to respondent No.4/uncle by respondent No.5/real father, without consent of respondent No.3/real mother---The adoption deed reflected that respondent No.5/real father handed over custody of the minor to respondent No.4/uncle with a clear stipulation that custody of the minor would remain with respondent No.4/uncle and none else---Perusal of the adoption deed and petition under S. 25 of the Act, 1890 also revealed that respondent No.3/real mother claimed and sought custody of the minor in a year's time---Petitioner, who had no blood relationship with the minor and had even been divorced by respondent No.4/adoptive parent/paternal uncle, was a stranger to the family of the minor---Minor being of a tender and gullible age of seven years was not old enough to formulate her opinion or even to understand and realize the bonding of real blood relationship, therefore, her intelligent preference could not be obtained---However, the minor joining her family, which included her real parents and real sisters, would be an environment of true love, affection and care, and also in the best interest and welfare of the minor---The assertion that the minor was deeply attached with the petitioner was without any substance since a child naturally becomes associated and attached with any person, who raises him/her from the stage of infancy---This case was not of adoption simpliciter as the adoption deed was only in favour of respondent No.4/uncle and none else---The petitioner being not related to the minor at all and in presence of real parents of the minor, the custody of the minor could not be handed over to the petitioner as welfare of the minor best lay with her real/biological parents---Admittedly, respondents Nos. 3 and 5 were real parents of the minor and as per Ss. 17 and 25 of the Act 1890, welfare of the ward/minor lay with the real parents---Petitioner had no biological link to the minor and was only connected through a now-dissolved marriage with the minor's uncle, therefore, her claim was not only weak in statutory terms but also found no backing under the Shariah---No case for interreference was made out, consequently, the Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343; Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhamamd and others PLD 2020 SC 508; Miss Nancy Ruth Baney v. District Judge, Islamabad and another PLD 2011 Islamabad 6; Jamshed v. Saleemuddin and 4 others PLD 2014 Sindh 120; Mrs. Shaukat Khalid v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others 1991 SCMR 19 and Rahimullah Choudhury v. Mrs. Sayeda Helali Begum and others 1974 SCMR 305 rel. 2025 LHC 2015; Mst. Farah Mehnaz and others v. Safeer Hussain Jaffar and others 2013 CLC 235 and Shahida Adnan v. Additional District Judge and others 2021 YLR 1915 ref. (b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 17 & 25---Custody of the minor---Welfare of the minor in custody matters---Custody of minor with adoptive parent---Scope---Paragraphs 352 and 354 of the Muhammadan Law confer the custody of a child to his/her natural parent on the touchstone of welfare, particularly, the mother, who is bestowed with inbuilt and inherent love and affection for her child more than anyone else in the world---There is no reason to deprive the minor from her/his entitlement to be brought up by her/his real parents along with her/his siblings---Such an act is precisely according to the principles enunciated by Islam, which does not treat custodial parents as the same or equal in contrast to biological parents. 2025 LHC 151 ref. (c) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 17 & 25---Custody of the minor---Preferential right of real parents over an adoptive parent---Scope---Real parents have a preferential right regarding custody of their child unless exception exists warranting to hold otherwise in respect of welfare of the minor---Minor living with his/her real parents and siblings would be an environment of true love, affection and care, and also in the best interest and welfare of the minor. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal, nor can concurrent findings of fact be interfered with unless it is established that the same are tainted with manifest illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional defect. Shahzad Ahmad Kalyar for Petitioner. Rai Zafar Hussain Bhatti for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Date of hearing: 15th May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (VIII of 1890) ----Ss. 17 & 25 Custody of minor—Welfare of minor as paramount consideration—Father residing abroad, not having met the child since birth, seeking custody after mother's remarriage—Scope—Father had neither sought visitation rights nor made any personal effort to meet or support the minor—Application for custody filed five years after birth of minor—Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court concurrently dismissed the claim for custody, emphasizing best interests of child—Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Ss. 17 & 25 of the Act, the determining factor in custody matters is the welfare of the minor, encompassing moral, educational, emotional, physical, and psychological well-being—Natural guardianship does not automatically confer entitlement to custody—The concept of welfare is not static and must be evaluated with reference to surrounding facts, including the existing bond between minor and custodial parent—Child’s continued education, emotional security, and consistent caregiving by mother supported finding that welfare lies with mother despite her remarriage—Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Khan Muhammad v. Mst. Surayya Bibi 2008 SCMR 480 • Rahimullah Choudhary v. Mrs. Sayeda Helali Begum 1974 SCMR 305 • Feroze Begum v. Muhammad Hussain 1978 SCMR 299 • Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock 2004 SCMR 1839 • Tahira v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi 1990 SCMR 852 • Mst. Firdous Iqbal v. Shifaat Ali 2000 SCMR 838 • Sardar Hussain v. Mst. Parveen Umer PLD 2004 SC 357 • Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad PLD 2020 SC 508 • Munawar Bibi v. Muhammad Amin 1995 SCMR 1206 • Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad 2004 SCMR 821 • Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen 2022 SCMR 2123 • Mst. Shahista Naz v. Muhammad Naeem Ahmed 2004 SCMR 990 • Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343 (b) Islamic Law ----Custody (Hizanat)---Effect of mother’s remarriage—Scope Mother’s remarriage with a person unrelated to the minor within prohibited degrees does not per se disentitle her from custody—Right of Hizanat under Islamic law is subordinate to welfare of minor and is not forfeited automatically on remarriage—If mother’s custody best serves minor’s welfare, she may retain custody despite remarriage—Reiterated that Islamic jurisprudence recognizes importance of mother-child bond and does not permit disruption unless required by overriding considerations of minor’s welfare—Court cited Islamic traditions and jurisprudence supporting sanctity of motherhood and welfare-centric approach to custody—Petitioner father’s second marriage and continued absence further negated claim to custody. Cited Cases: • Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad PLD 2020 SC 508 • Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343 • Mst. Shahista Naz v. Muhammad Naeem Ahmed 2004 SCMR 990 • Feroze Begum v. Muhammad Hussain 1978 SCMR 299 (c) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989 ----Arts. 3(1) & 27 International law—Application of “best interests of the child” principle—Pakistan’s ratification of UNCRC without reservation—Binding obligation to prioritize child’s welfare in all judicial and administrative decisions—Welfare includes child’s material, educational, moral, and emotional development—Courts must interpret domestic guardianship law in light of international standards—UNCRC reinforces the welfare-centric approach under Ss. 17 & 25 of Guardian and Wards Act—Father’s absence, lack of effort to bond with minor, and mother's continued care justified denial of custody—Application of UNCRC principles led to confirmation of findings by lower courts. Cited Instruments: • United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989 • Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959 • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979 (d) Civil Procedure ----Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference by Supreme Court---Custody disputes Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts unless judgment is found to be perverse or arbitrary—Findings of all three courts below found to be well-reasoned, consistent with evidence, and in line with settled principles—No illegality or misreading of evidence shown—Petition found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly—Leave to appeal refused. Cited Cases: • Mst. Firdous Iqbal v. Shifaat Ali 2000 SCMR 838 • Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock 2004 SCMR 1839

Summary: ----S.25---Custody of minor---Visitation rights of father---Scope---Real parents have an inherent right to meet and visit their children---Visitation schedule of minor with non-custodial parent, settlement of---Welfare of minor is of paramount consideration in custody matters---The petitioner (father) filed a suit for custody and visitation rights of his minor son whose temporary custody was with the respondent No.1 (mother)---Despite an already given schedule for visitation the Family Court declined enforcement of the visitation schedule citing the child's reluctance and panic attacks at the prospect of meeting his father---Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal whereby appellate court set aside the Family Court's order and restored the father's visitation rights---Despite scheduling of visitation schedule by the High Court in an earlier petition, Trial Court did not enforce the schedule, citing the child's aversion to the father---However, the appellate court, considering all prior orders and welfare of the child, reinstated the father's right of visitation---Validity---Welfare of the child was of paramount consideration in any decision regarding custody or visitation rights, however, at the same time, non-custodial parent's inherent right to maintain relationship with his child could not be ignored---This right was crucial for the emotional and psychological development of the child---Denying visitation rights could lead to emotional deprivation and parental alienation syndrome, where the child could develop negative feelings towards the non-custodial parent due to lack of interaction---It was the duty of courts to evaluate the potential impact of visitation on the child's well-being, especially if there were concerns about the child's mental health or safety---In cases where there were concerns about the child's safety or well-being, courts could impose conditions on visitation which could include supervised visits, the presence of a mental health professional or the requirement for the non-custodial parent to provide surety bonds to ensure the child's safe return---High Court upheld the findings of the appellate court with direction to chalk out a visitation schedule---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances. Mst. Madiha Younus v. Imran Ahmed 2018 SCMR 1991; Nutan Gautam v. Prakash Gautam 2019 INSC 467 and Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh 2006 INSC 864 rel. Hap Nawaz v. Mst. Zeba Rasheed and others 2023 YLR 816; Mst. Muneeba Raheel v. Raheel Taufiq 2020 CLC 1353; Mst. Hira v. Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and another 2019 MLD 804; Mst. Maryam Masood v. Mughisuddin Mirza 2009 CLC 1443; Mst. Avesha Abdul Maleek v. Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and others 2020 YLR 401; Mrs. Shaukat Khalid v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi 1989 CLC 1377; Shahida Adnan v. Additional District Judge and others 2021 YLR 1915 and Abeera Khan v. Adnan Jameel 2019 CLC 1478 ref. Shahid Naseem Khan Chamkani for Petitioner. Saifullah Muhib Kakakhel for Respondents.. Date of hearing: 11th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 – S. 14(3), Order I Rule 10 CPC – Impleadment of grandfather in maintenance suit – Financial incapacity of father – Maintainability of appeal against order impleading grandfather – Scope and permissibility ––– Petitioner (mother) filed suit for recovery of maintenance from respondent No.4 (father) who, by his own admission, was unemployed and unable to provide maintenance to his two minor daughters—Petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead respondent No.3 (paternal grandfather), citing his substantial wealth and financial capacity—Learned Family Court allowed the application, but the Appellate Court reversed the order, holding that grandfather cannot be impleaded unless father's incapacity is proven—Held, the appellate order was unsustainable—Where a father is unable to fulfill legal obligation of maintenance, grandfather is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings—Obligation of grandfather flows from Islamic jurisprudence and confirmed by precedent—Appellate Court’s view requiring prior adjudication of father's incapacity before impleadment creates undue hardship and multiplicity of litigation—High Court allowed writ petition and restored the Family Court's order. ----Cited Cases: Bashir Ahmad v. ADJ, Hafizabad, PLD 2024 SC 67 Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara, 2023 SCMR 413 Farzana Rasool v. Dr. Muhammad Bashir, 2011 SCMR 1361 (b) Family Law – Maintenance – Impleadment of grandfather – Welfare of minor children – Procedural technicalities must not defeat substantive justice: ––– The Court emphasized that in family litigation, particularly those involving minor children, the welfare of the child is paramount—Where evidence on record shows father is financially incapable and grandfather is financially sound, impleading grandfather is necessary for complete adjudication—Strict procedural bars must not hinder substantive justice or result in hardship to minors—Courts must facilitate, not obstruct, child-rights driven litigation. Held: Procedural convenience must favor women and children where statute allows flexibility. Cited Case: Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara, 2023 SCMR 413 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 10 – Nature of order on impleadment application – Final or interlocutory – Appealability: ––– Held, an order allowing or refusing impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC is a final order with respect to rights of a party to participate in proceedings—Such orders are appealable and not merely interlocutory—Appellate jurisdiction was properly invoked by respondents, but High Court found appellate court’s reasoning flawed and against settled law. (d) Family Law – Grandfather’s obligation to maintain grandchildren – Conditions and legal framework: ––– Grandfather’s obligation arises if: (i) the father is financially incapable, and (ii) the grandfather is financially sound—If both conditions are met, the grandfather becomes legally responsible—This right must be proven in court, and grandfather given fair opportunity to rebut such claim—Decree passed against father cannot be executed against grandfather unless he was made a party—Hence, impleadment is necessary for future enforcement of maintenance decrees. Cited Case: Bashir Ahmad v. ADJ, Hafizabad, PLD 2024 SC 67 ----Disposition: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned judgment dated 09.01.2025 by the Appellate Court set aside – Family Court’s order dated 07.10.2024 restored – Paternal grandfather impleaded as defendant in maintenance proceedings.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 7 & 25---Custody of minor---Determining factors---Welfare of minor---Economic conditions- --Scope---Petitioner/father of two minors sons remained unsuccessful in getting their custody---Held, that petitioner was settled abroad and had filed petition under section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 through special attorney who appeared as petitioner's witness---Such fact also showed petitioner's lack of affection and love as well as care for the minors---Petitioner neither joined proceedings during pendency of petition before Trial Court nor bothered to appear before Lower Appellate Court---There was nothing on record to suggest that respondent /mother was not taking care of minors in a proper way or that she was not getting them educated so as to make them useful citizens---Respondent /mother of minors did not enter into second marital bond for the sake of her children and welfare of minors was with respondent /mother---Poverty could not be considered a valid ground for disentitling respondent/ mother from custody of minors---Paramount consideration for Court in making order under section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 of appointment of guardian of minor is that it should be satisfied that the order is for welfare of minor---Although father is a natural guardian of his minor children, yet court has to be satisfied while appointing father as a guardian that welfare of minor lies in the fact that he be appointed as a guardian and the custody of minor be delivered accordingly---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Khan Muhammad v. Mst. Surayya Bibi and others 2008 SCMR 480; Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1839; Mst. Talat Nasira v. Mst. Munawar Sultana and 2 others 1985 SCMR 1367; Mst. Rubia Jilani v. Zahoor Akhtar Raja and 2 others 1991 SCMR 1834; Mst. Firdous Iqbal v. Shifaat Ali and others 2000 SCMR 838; Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad and another 2004 SCMR 821; Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343 and Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen and others 2022 SCMR 2123 rel. Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate-on-Record assisted by Shah Faisal Najafi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (via video-link from Peshawar). Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2024.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 12 & 25---Appointment of guardianship of minor---Conditions, violation of---Effect---Both the parties (parents) separately filed guardianship applications and the mother's application was accepted---Later, father filed application against mother before Family/Guardian Court for blocking her CNIC etc., which was allowed---Mother (guardian) assailed such order passed by the Family/Guardian Court---Held, that the Family/Guardian Court while dismissing the guardian application filed by father for custody of minor, (in relevant clause (e) of final order) had specifically restrained the parties from removing the custody of minor abroad as well as his permanent shifting beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court subject to prior permission of the Court---However, record was suggestive of the fact that the petitioner/mother had removed the custody of the minor from the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court and took him to UAE without permission of the Court, which was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of that final order, and taking pain of such breach of terms and conditions of the final order, the Court took coercive measures of blocking the CNIC and Passport of the petitioner/mother---Thus, impugned order was proper and in accordance with law---Hence, the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality requiring interference by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction---However, in order to resolve the controversy and to facilitate the petitioner and also taking into account the welfare and well-being of the minor, the petitioner may approach the Family Court for relief (of unblocking of her CNIC/Passport as well as seeking permission to travel abroad)---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. [p. 549] A & C (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Ss. 12 & 25---Appointment of guardianship of minor---Conditions, violation of---Effect---Interlocutory order, assailing of---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Both the parties (parents) separately filed guardianship applications and mother's application was accepted---Later, father filed application before Family/Guardian Court against mother for blocking her CNIC, etc which was allowed---Mother (guardian) assailed such order passed by the Family/Guardian Court---Held that impugned order was interlocutory in nature which could not be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary in nature and should not be exercised to defeat or bypass the purpose of a validly enacted statutory provisions until and unless the order passed thereunder suffers from any illegality or jurisdictional error---Hence, the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or irregularity that may require interference by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction---However, in order to resolve the controversy and to facilitate the petitioner and also taking into account the welfare and well-being of the minor, the petitioner may approach the Family Court for relief (of unblocking of her CNIC/Passport as well as seeking permission to travel abroad)---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. G.N. Qureshi for Petitioner. Ramish Farhat for Respondent No. 1. Ali Zardari, AAG for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 13th September, 2024.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss.7 & 17---Appointment of guardian---Custody of minor---Duty of court---Welfare of minor---Primary consideration----Custody of minor was obtained by mother after the death of her husband from her in-laws after hectic efforts by way of approaching competent court of law and with the help of police---Application of mother for appointment of guardian of the minor accepted by the Guardian Court was remanded to Guardian Court upon preferring appeal by the father of her deceased husband for decision afresh after impleading the father of her husband---Validity---Application for appointment of guardian is regulated by S.7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Act)---Mother and father both are natural guardians---Section 17, clauses (1), (2) and (3) of the Act imposes a duty upon the Court while appointing a guardian to make the appointment consistent with the law to which the minor is subject---Central idea is the welfare of the minor---Welfare means his wordly, moral and spiritual well-being---In the presence of mother, the welfare of minors does not lie elsewhere---Minors feel psychologically more secure in the company of the mother rather than anyone else---Amount of love and care which a child receives from the mother cannot be expected from any other relative, including the grandfather or uncle---Welfare of the minor would be provided by the mother with more devotion and there is no other better institution than a lap of a living mother and there cannot be a better tutor than a mother---Right from birth, the minors were living with their mother and such period was spread over years---Uprooting the minors from their given and familiar surroundings, although permissible, yet could not be done as there nothing on record to suggest that the minors would be given beneficent treatment by their grandfather---Petitioner being mother of the minors might spare lot of time for them---Mother who always had a better understanding with her children, and with whom the children enjoyed intimacy, had legal right to be the guardian of the minors---Mother was neither leading an immoral life nor was a lady of ill-repute, rather she was an educated lady and had been leading family life after death of her husband and there was no allegation whatsoever against her moral character---Judgment of the appellate court remanding the matter to Family Court for deciding the matter afresh after impleading grandfather of the minor as respondent was unwarranted---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.35A & O.XVII, Rr.1 & 2---Unnecessary/frequent adjournments---Effect---Failure of the counsel to appear before the Court upon acceptance/receipt of brief---Effect---Despite availing several opportunities, the respondent and his counsel failed to argue the case, on all previous dates of hearing---Petitioner, who was a female, came from far-flung area with the hope that her case would be decided on merits, but due to constant adjournments by counsel of respondent, case could not be decided---Once brief was accepted by the counsel, he was under legal obligation to appear before the Court and argue the case and assist the Court fairly and justly---Unnecessary and frequent adjournments for no legal or moral justification were unwarranted, thus, request for adjournment was turned down and the case was decided. Tariq Khan Hoti for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th September, 2024.