Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----S. 25---Non-custodial parent, rights of---Minor girl---Overnight stay with father---Scope---Guardian Court, on the statement of the father, while dismissing his application for custody as withdrawn, issued a schedule of visitation on number of events/days (including Eids, birthday of minor, vacations) also allowing overnight stay of minor with father on certain terms---Father filed constitutional petition as the Appellate Court partially accepted the appeal of mother and framed new schedule for visitation , excluding overnight stay of minor girl with father---Validity---Non-custodial parent has all the rights to meet his/her children and neither right of access to his/her minor children can be denied nor a non-custodial parent will be considered as an alien to his/her children---A minor not only needs love, affection, care and attention of a mother but also the father and negating a non-custodial parent of his/her right to meet his/her minor children would lead to emotional deprivation---A non-custodial parent has an inherent right to effectively participate in upbringing of minor and that cannot be achieved without properly chalked visitation schedule---Due to lack of interaction with non-custodial parent, the children start forgetting and in many cases disliking the non-custodial parent and this phenomenon has been named as Parental Alienation Syndrome by the psychiatrists---Hence, visiting schedule significantly bridges a relationship between the minor children and a non-custodial parent---Using visitation rights, a non-custodial parent can not only recolour the emotions of minor children for him/her but also reinvigorate the bond of love and affection with the minor---Although, the law on the subject of visitation is contained in the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, but there are no guidelines about the duration, frequency of visits of minor and about the visitation schedule; hence, while deciding about the visitation schedule, the paramount consideration is the welfare of minor---Considering the paramount consideration of welfare of minor and rights of father/petitioner, High Court chalked new visitation schedule of minor by virtue of which the petitioner/father was entitled to meet with his daughter/minor on certain days/events (including Eids, Birthday of minor, vacations) and overnight stay of minor with father was also allowed, though such number of nights were decreased---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by Appellate Court by amending the visitation schedule accordingly---Constitutional petition, filed by father of minor , was partly allowed. Mst. Madiha Younus v. Imran Ahmed 2018 SCMR 1991 ref. Muhammad Mumtaz Faridi for Petitioner. Allah Ditta Naseem for Respondent. No. 1. Date of hearing: 21st March, 2024.

Summary: Background:Fayyaz-ul-Hassan Anwar, the petitioner and father, initially sought custody of his minor daughter, Marosh Hassan, under Section 25 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890. After expressing his willingness to settle for a visitation schedule instead, the Guardian Court dismissed his custody petition and established a visitation schedule. Dissatisfied with the visitation arrangement, the respondent, Mst. Shehla Khalid (mother), appealed, and the Appellate Court modified the visitation schedule to limit the father's time with his daughter, citing concerns about potential misuse of overnight stays. The father then filed this writ petition challenging the Appellate Court's decision.----Issues:Whether the visitation rights established by the Appellate Court are fair and serve the best interests of the child.Whether the father's rights to participate in his daughter's upbringing were being unreasonably restricted.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court, presided over by Judge Masud Abid Naqvi, found the Appellate Court's restrictions on the father's visitation rights to be overly stringent and not in the best interest of the child. The court emphasized that both parents play essential roles in a child's development and that preventing the father from having meaningful contact with his daughter could lead to emotional deprivation known as Parental Alienation Syndrome. The court modified the visitation schedule to allow more substantial and meaningful interactions between the father and the daughter, including overnight stays during holidays and longer visits during school vacations. The court ordered the father to submit a surety bond and surrender his passport during the daughter's visits to ensure compliance with the terms.----Citations/Precedents:Guardians & Wards Act, 1890: Provides the legal framework for custody and guardianship issues but lacks specific guidelines on visitation schedules.Mst. Madiha Younus Vs. Imran Ahmed (2018 SCMR 1991): Cited for principles on establishing visitation schedules that consider the welfare of the child as the paramount concern.General legal principles on parental rights and child welfare: Emphasize the importance of both parents in a child's life and the detrimental effects of limiting contact with the non-custodial parent.Additional ReferencesThe judgment discusses the psychological impact of restricted parental contact on children, referring to Parental Alienation Syndrome.Legal principles that stipulate the non-custodial parent?s rights to maintain a relationship with their children, highlighting the importance of emotional well-being over logistical convenience or unsubstantiated fears.

Summary: Issues:Whether an appeal under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act 1964 is maintainable against an order of the Guardian Judge/Family Court refusing interim custody.The interpretation and application of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act 1964 in relation to Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890.The legality of the lower courts' decisions regarding the interim custody of the minor daughter.-----Outcome:The High Court held that an appeal under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act 1964 is maintainable against an order of the Guardian Judge/Family Court refusing interim custody. The Court interpreted Section 14 to encompass decisions regarding guardianship issues, including interim orders, notwithstanding Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The impugned order of the District Judge Khyber was set aside, and the petitioner's appeal was deemed pending for further proceedings.-----Holding:The Court interpreted Section 14 of the Family Courts Act 1964 liberally to include appeals against decisions or orders of the Family Court, including interim orders related to guardianship issues.The Court emphasized the overriding effect of the Family Courts Act 1964 in matters pertaining to guardianship, even if not specifically mentioned in Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890.The appeal of the petitioner was deemed maintainable, and the impugned order of the District Judge Khyber was set aside, directing further proceedings in accordance with the law.-----Citations/Precedents:Ms. Quratulain Aleem Vs Muhammad Rehsn Khan (2006 YLR 2604)Mst. Shsbeena Younas Vs Additional Disttict Judse, Lahore (PLD 2023, Lahore 453)Mst. Eram Raza and 2 others Vs Sved Mutaqi Muhammad Ali snd another (2018 MLD 727)Shazia Akbar Vs Maqsood Ahmad and snother (2012 YLR 2266)Tqssadaq Nswaz Vs Masood Iobsl Usmani and others (PlD 2018 Lahore 830)

Summary: (a) Guardian and Wards Act, 1890: ----S. 17 & S. 25 Custody of minor—Welfare of the minor—Visitation rights—Father’s entitlement—Role of grandparents—Remand for re-evaluation. In custody matters, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor. While a father, being the natural guardian, ordinarily has the primary right to custody, exceptional circumstances may necessitate entrusting custody to maternal grandparents if it serves the best interest of the child. In the present case, the minor, aged 2.5 years, had been residing with her maternal grandmother since birth, and no emotional bond was established between her and her father. Abrupt removal from her current environment was likely to cause emotional trauma. The documents supporting the father's early retirement application and proof of better means were not part of the trial court's evidence, having come into existence subsequently. The case was remanded to the Guardian Judge for fresh determination after allowing both parties to lead additional evidence. Meanwhile, visitation rights were granted to the father twice a month for two hours each time to foster a bond with the child. The Guardian Judge was directed to ensure these visitation rights were exercised without hindrance or intimidation. ----Cited Cases: Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen and others (2022 SCMR 2123) Mst. Anwari Bibi v. Hidayat Ullah Khan and others (2020 MLD 302) Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem (2014 SCMR 343) -----Disposition: The impugned judgments of the Guardian Judge and the Additional District Judge were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Guardian Judge for fresh adjudication within three months, ensuring visitation rights for the father during this period.

Summary: Background: The appellant challenged the decision of the Civil Judge/Guardian Judge Barnala, which appointed the respondent as the guardian of the minor, Noor Muhammad. The respondent filed for guardianship following her divorce from the appellant who allegedly forcibly took their minor son. The trial court ruled in favor of Najma Bibi, prompting the appellant to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court's decision to appoint Najma Bibi as the guardian of the minor was in accordance with the law. 2- Whether the welfare of the minor was properly considered in the guardianship decision. 3- Whether the appellant's failure to provide maintenance affected his guardianship rights. 4- Whether the alleged agreement by the respondent to give custody of the minor to the appellant was valid. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Welfare of the Minor: The court emphasized that the paramount consideration in guardianship cases is the welfare of the minor, as outlined in Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The minor, Noor Muhammad, expressed his preference to live with his mother, which the court deemed crucial. --Maintenance Obligations: The appellant's failure to pay maintenance for the minor further disqualified him from being appointed as the guardian. The court referenced a precedent where the father's lack of financial support and subsequent legal actions to avoid maintenance payments impacted the decision on guardianship. --Custody Agreement: The court found no plausible evidence to support the appellant's claim that the respondent agreed to give him custody. Even if such an agreement existed, it would be considered coerced and illegal, as the welfare of the minor takes precedence. --Second Marriage of Appellant: The appellant's remarriage and the presence of children from the second marriage were factors against granting him custody, as it would leave the minor at the mercy of a stepmother. Conversely, the respondent did not remarry and dedicated herself to caring for the minor. The court concluded that the trial court's decision was legally sound and aligned with the minor's best interests. The appeal was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: Irshad Begum’s case, 2003 SCR 318 2015 SCR 1455 Mst. Rasheedan Bibi vs. Additional District Judge and 2 others, 2012 CLC 784

Summary: Law related to paternity claims '' challenges to paternity could not be brought by third parties'' --- The court discouraged the use of criminal law in family matters by not only quashing the criminal case, but also directing the IGP Islamabad for holding police officers accountable for the malpractice. ----- The FIR alleged that Shafqat Hussain had facilitated the falsification of NADRA records to show his son, Mohsin Shafqat, as his own child. Shafqat Hussain's counsel argued that the charges were baseless, motivated by malice, and initiated by a retired police officer who was trying to benefit from the distribution of property left by Shafqat Hussain's former wife, who had subsequently married the complainant. They also mentioned that the deceased wife of the complainant had claimed to be the mother of Shafqat Hussain's son in a guardian petition.The judgment, delivered by Babar Sattar, J., emphasized the legal precedents established in previous cases, particularly highlighting Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ("1984 Order"), which stated that challenges to paternity could not be brought by third parties. The court cited cases like Mst. Laila Qayyum Vs. Fawad Qayum and others (PLD 2019 SC 449) to support this principle.Furthermore, the judgment noted that even the petitioner, Shafqat Hussain, could not challenge the paternity of his son, Mohsin Shafqat, due to the expiration of the prescribed period. The court cited various legal cases, such as Mohammad Nawaz Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge (Civil Petition No.2414-L/2015), Urooj Tabani Vs. Federation of Pakistan, Suhail Abbasi Vs. Mst. Khushboo and others, and others to emphasize the legal protections in place for the legitimacy and paternity of a child.Given the legal precedents and the absence of any valid grounds for the charges in the FIR, the court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR, and invalidated any related proceedings. The court also ordered the complainant/respondent No.1 to pay costs of Rs. 100,000 to the petitioner within 30 days and directed the Inspector General of Police Islamabad to conduct an inquiry into potential abuse of authority by the police officer who registered the FIR. Disciplinary proceedings would be initiated if abuse of authority was confirmed.

Summary: Background: The Petitioner asserted her biological maternity and sought to reclaim custody from the adoptive parent. The case was heard in the context of an increasing focus on adoption within Pakistan and its implications under Islamic and Pakistani Law.---Issue:1. Legal Status of Adoption in Islam and Pakistani Law: Whether the adoptive relationship established by respondent has legal precedence over the biological connection in the context of custody.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The central legal question was whether the adoptive relationship established by the third respondent should take precedence over the biological connection between the plaintiff and the child, especially in the context of custody rights. This issue probes deep into the legal fabric of Pakistani law and Islamic jurisprudence concerning the recognition and implications of adoption.The court determined that the biological connection between the plaintiff and the child was paramount, overriding the legal relationship established through adoption by the third respondent. The judgment explicitly stated that, under Islamic and Pakistani law, adoption does not confer the same legal rights as biological parenthood, especially regarding custody and inheritance rights. The judge noted:"According to the NADRA (National Database and Registration Authority) Registration procedure, the parentage of the adopted child with known parentage must be entered as that of natural/biological parents, whereas parentage of the children with unknown parentage can be entered with some fictitious names to avoid social stigmas but there must be evidence provided by the adoptive parents that the child is with unknown parentage to avoid any confusion or controversy over the rights or duties of the adopted child as a biological child." ----The court ruled in favor of Mst. Arzoo, granting her custody of Muhammad Ans after the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore, confirmed her maternity through DNA analysis. The judgment highlighted the lack of legal consequences of adoption in Islamic and Pakistani law regarding custodial rights. The court emphasized the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration, overriding procedural custody claims under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.----Citations/Precedents:-Mirjam Aberras Lehdeaho v. S.H.O., Police Station Chung, Lahore and others (2018 SCMR 427)-Ahmed Sami and 2 others v. Saadia Ahmed and another (1996 SCMR 268)Shaukat Masih v. Mst. Farhat Parkash and others (2015 SCMR 731)-Muhammad Khalil-ur-Rehman v. Mst. Shabana Rahman and another (PLD 1995 SC 633)-Mst. Nadia Perveen v. Mst. Almas Noreen and others (PLD 2012 SC 758)Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898Guardians and Wards Act, 1890Succession Act, 1925

Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute over guardianship of a minor, initiated when a guardianship certificate was issued to the appellants. Subsequently, an application for cancellation of the certificate was filed on grounds of fraudulent procurement. The trial court initially entertained the matter but later dismissed it, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the minor's residence abroad. The High Court upheld this decision, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for cancellation of the guardianship certificate. 2- Whether the jurisdiction of the court continues even after issuance of a guardianship order. Interpretation of relevant provisions under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the Family Courts Act, 1993. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for cancellation of the guardianship certificate despite the minor's residence abroad. It reasoned that the court's jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, persists until the minor reaches majority age. Moreover, the introduction of the Family Courts Act, 1993, does not negate this jurisdiction but rather specifies that family courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters including guardianship. Therefore, the trial court's rejection of jurisdiction based on the minor's residence abroad was deemed incorrect. ----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Irshad Bibi vs. M. Zulfiqar & another [1993 CLC 1625] Liaqat Ali vs. Mst. Jannat Bibi [1996 SCR 37] Anne Zahra vs. Tahir Ali Khilji & others [2001 SCMR 2000]

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a mother, challenged the order passed by the Guardian Judge in Lahore, which returned her application for custody of her mentally disabled minor daughter, Wania, under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the "Act"), claiming that the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection under the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 (MHO 2001). The petitioner’s request for interim custody of her other two minor daughters was also denied, with only visitation rights granted. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction over the custody of a mentally disabled minor, or if such cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Protection under the MHO 2001. 2- Whether the denial of interim custody of the other two minors was justified based on their current education and residence with their father. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the Family Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of minors, including mentally disabled minors, under the Family Courts Act, 1964 (FCA 1964), and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The court found that the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 (MHO 2001), deals primarily with the treatment and management of mentally disordered persons, but it does not repeal or override the provisions of the FCA 1964 concerning the custody of minors. The petitioner’s application for interim custody of Wania was wrongly returned by the Guardian Judge. Regarding the interim custody of the other two minors, the court found that the mere fact that they were receiving education while in their father’s custody was insufficient to deny the mother’s custody claim. The court emphasized that a mother is generally entitled to the custody of her minor daughters, unless there is evidence to disqualify her. The failure of the lower court to properly assess the welfare of the minors and the ability of the father to care for their needs was noted. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Family Court to reconsider the matter of interim custody of the minors expeditiously. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Khalid Karim vs. Mst. Saadia Yaqoob (PLD 2012 SC 66) Mst. Feroze Begum vs. Lt-Col. Muhammad Hussain (1983 SCMR 606) Munawar Bibi vs. Muhammad Amin (1995 SCMR 1206) Mst. Tahira vs. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi (1990 SCMR 852) Mir Bat Khan vs. Mst. Sherin Bibi (2019 SCMR 520) Yasmin Jang vs. Advocate General, Punjab (PLD 2022 Lahore 495)

Summary: Held that after insertion of the word 'Guardianship' in the First Schedule of The West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the remedy by way of appeal is available against an order under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 although earlier, as per Section 47 of the Act, 1890, the right of appeal was not available. It has been further held that plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act, 1890 indicates that the overarching and controlling position held by the welfare of a minor in granting his permanent custody under Section 25 of the Act, 1890 is equally applicable to the grant of interim custody under Section 12 of the Act ibid and it will defeat the legislative intent and object of the law if the paramount interest of welfare of a minor is considered supreme and dominant feature only at the time of deciding application under Section 25 of the Act and not so at the time of deciding an application under Section 12 thereof. Thus, the welfare of a minor is always to be controlling force at every stage and decision made under Section 12 of the Act, 1890 is no exception. In the instant case, the respondent/father was allowed to retain the custody of the minor, who was admittedly of tender age of four years, which has been held not to be in best interest of the minor inasmuch as the minor of such tender age, at an interim stage, should not be deprived from the love and care which a mother can extend since such deprivation has far reaching impact on mental and physical upbringing of the minor, which is not the object of Section 12 of the Act, 1890.