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: (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: (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: Background: The petitioner, a mother of two minor children, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890, seeking appointment as the guardian of her children after her husband, who was murdered, left behind the minors. Initially, the Family Court appointed her as the guardian of both the person and property of the minors. However, the petitioner’s father-in-law challenged this decision, leading the case to be remanded by the Additional District Judge with directions to implead the father-in-law as a respondent. -----Issues: ---1- Whether the petitioner should remain the appointed guardian of her minor children. ---2- Whether the learned Guardian Judge erred in failing to include the paternal grandfather as a respondent in the initial proceedings. ---3- Whether the Additional District Judge’s remand of the case for further proceedings and the inclusion of the paternal grandfather was legally justified. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the failure to implead the paternal grandfather in the original proceedings was a valid ground for the remand of the case. The Additional District Judge was justified in setting aside the previous decision and remanding the case to the Family Court for a decision on merits after including the paternal grandfather. As a result, the court dismissed the petition, noting the consistent requests for adjournments by the respondents and a lack of merit in their arguments. The court upheld the remand order, directing the Family Court to proceed as per the guidelines set out by the Additional District Judge. -----Citations/Precedents: Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Article 199) ----Quote: ''In presence of mother, the welfare of the minor does not lie elsewhere. Welfare means wordly, moral and spiritual welfare of the minor. Child of tender age feels psychological more secured in the company of mother than anyone else. The amount of love and care which a child receives from the mother cannot be expected from any other relative. 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 can be no better tutor than mother. Once a brief is accepted by the counsel, he is under legal obligation to appear before the Court and argue the case fairly and justly. Unnecessary and frequent adjournments for no legal or moral justification are unwarranted.''

Summary: After the murder of her husband, the petitioner was arrested as a co-accused in the murder case. The minor girl stayed with the petitioner in jail until her release on bail, while the minor boy was kept by the paternal grandmother (respondent No.2). The petitioner filed a habeas petition for the recovery of the minor boy, which was dismissed. Subsequently, she approached the Guardian Court for custody of the minor boy. The Trial Court granted her custody, but the Appellate Court overturned this decision, citing the petitioner's involvement in her husband's murder as a ground for denying custody. ---Issues: Whether the petitioner, accused of her husband's murder, should be granted custody of the minor boy. Whether the respondent grandmother, who allegedly has a conflict of interest regarding the minor's property, should retain custody. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The welfare of the minor is paramount and requires consideration of the best interest of the child in all aspects, including emotional, psychological, and financial well-being. The respondent grandmother's handling of the minor boy's property raised concerns about her motives. The lease agreement executed for the minor's property without proper guardianship was suspicious and highlighted a conflict of interest. The Appellate Court failed to consider the welfare of the minor girl, who was not sought for guardianship by the respondent grandmother, indicating a selective interest in the minor boy, possibly due to his property. The respondent grandmother's disobedience of court orders and the clandestine handling of the minor's property further undermined her suitability as a guardian. The Court noted that while the petitioner is accused of murder, the principle of being "innocent until proven guilty" should apply, and depriving the minor boy of his mother's love based solely on accusations would be premature. ---Decision: The impugned judgment by the Appellate Court was set aside, and the Trial Court's decision granting custody to the petitioner was restored. The petitioner was directed to provide a third-party surety bond of Rs.2 million before receiving custody of the minor boy. The respondent grandmother was ordered to produce the minor boy in court on 22.06.2024 for the custody transfer. The visitation schedule established by the Appellate Court for the petitioner was to apply mutatis mutandis to the respondent grandmother. The respondent grandmother was allowed to file a fresh petition for custody if the petitioner is convicted. ---Outcome: The petitioner, Hina Imtiaz, was granted custody of the minor boy, subject to the conditions laid out by the court. The decision emphasized the welfare of the minor and addressed concerns about the respondent grandmother's conflict of interest and the need for the siblings to stay together. Citations/Precedents: Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Previous case laws and principles of child welfare and guardianship

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 491—Custody of minor—Scope of habeas corpus—Pending family litigation—Mother filed application for recovery of minor son aged 4 years from father alleging illegal detention—Minor produced in Court by SHO pursuant to direction—Held, remedy under S. 491 Cr.P.C. is limited to illegal or improper detention and not intended to permanently adjudicate rights of custody which fall within exclusive domain of Guardian Court—Since both parties had already initiated proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act before competent Family Courts, and minor was produced in compliance, issue of alleged illegal custody no longer survived—Mother’s prayer for interim custody rejected in light of settled principle that welfare of the child is the paramount consideration to be decided by Guardian Court. Cited Case: • Humayun Hassan v. Arslan Humayun and another PLD 2013 SC 557 (b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) ----Ss. 7, 12 & 25—Welfare of minor—Visitation rights—Jurisdiction—Pending suits—Both mother and father had initiated family litigation regarding custody and maintenance before Guardian Courts at Ghotki and Shikarpur—Held, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure consistent adjudication, Family Court Sukkur directed to hear both matters and decide custody in accordance with welfare of the child—In the interim, mother granted visitation rights without obstruction—Father directed to maintain minor and mother if marriage subsists—Court emphasized that welfare, not technicalities, governs custody decisions, and issues such as second marriage, financial status, or illiteracy do not per se disqualify a parent from custody. Disposition: Application disposed of in terms. Custody matter transferred to Family Judge/Guardian Court Sukkur for decision within 15 days. Applicant mother granted visitation rights in the interim. Father directed not to create obstruction and to provide for the minor’s well-being.

Summary: ''On 29-04-2024, the LHC held that the mother, despite her previous waiver of custody rights, is entitled to regain custody of her minor son as the mother has a preferential right to custody of children under Muslim personal law up to a certain age. ''Custody of minor child; Difference between 'Walayat' and 'Hizanat' ---- Issues:Whether the mother, despite her previous waiver of custody rights, is entitled to regain custody of her minor son.The applicability of Muslim personal law regarding the custody (Hizanat) of children, particularly in the context of the mother's natural right to custody up to a certain age.The proper jurisdiction for resolving the custody dispute and the impact of previous legal proceedings on the current petition.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, ruled in favor of the petitioner, recognizing the mother's preferential right to custody under Muslim law. It was determined that the mother's waiver of custody rights was not legally binding, allowing her to reclaim her right to custody. The court ordered interim custody to be granted to the mother, subject to the final determination by the Guardian Court, where the custody proceedings were pending and scheduled for 15.05.2024.Citations/Precedents:Mst. HASEENA BIBI versus ABDUL HALEEM and others (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 291)Mst. RAZIA REHMAN versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 533)Miss HINA JILANI, DIRECTOR OF A.G.H.S. LEGAL AID CELL Versus SOHAIL BUTT (PLD 1995 Lahore 151)RAHIMULLAH CHOUDHURY versus MRS. Sayeda HELALI BEGUM AND OTHERS (1974 SCMR 305)Mst. ZOHRA BEGUM Versus Sh. LATIF AHMAD MUNAWWAR (PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lahore 695)MAHMOODA KHATOON versus Syed ZAINUL HASNAIN RIZVI (PLD 1958 (W.P.) Karachi 150)Mst. QURAT-UL-AIN versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SADDAR JALALPUR JATTAN, DISTRICT GUJRAT and others (2024 SCMR 486)Raja MUHAMMAD OWAIS versus Mst. NAZIA JABEEN and others (2022 SCMR 2123)Muhammad Rafique v. Muhammad Ghafoor (PLD 1972 Supreme Court 6)

Summary: Background:This case involves multiple civil petitions filed by Khawaja Adnan Zafar against Hina Bashir and others, appealing various interim orders related to the custody of his three children issued by lower courts, following his divorce from Hina Bashir.----Issues:Whether the interim custody orders issued by the lower courts, which were challenged in multiple petitions, should be upheld.Whether the Supreme Court should intervene in these interim orders.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed all the civil petitions filed by Khawaja Adnan Zafar. The court held that the petitions arising from interim orders were not maintainable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, as interim orders generally do not warrant Supreme Court intervention unless there is a flagrant violation of law or manifest grave injustice, none of which were demonstrated in this case. The court emphasized the established legal principle that interim orders are typically not interfered with, and it found no fault with the lower courts' decisions, which did not cause any injustice or prejudice to the petitioner's ongoing custody case. The Supreme Court directed the Guardian Judge to decide the pending application for permanent custody expediently and in accordance with the law.----Citations/Precedents:Multan Development Authority v. Muhammad Ramzan (PLD 1989 SC 629)Salah-ud-din v. Zia Farhat (1996 SCMR 1528)Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd v. Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 2014 SC 1)Federation of Pakistan v. Shafiq ul Hassan (2020 SCMR 2119)Abdul Baqi v. Khan Muhammad (PLD 2022 SC 546)Province of Sindh v. Sartaj Hyder (2023 SCMR 459)Attiq ur Rehman v. Tahir Mehmood (2023 SCMR 501)