Summary: Where an application under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is allowed resulting in change of custody, such an order is appealable as a decision given in terms of Section 14(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, therefore, in view of proviso of Section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 an Intra Court Appeal would not lie in the matter.

Summary: The appellant in this case challenged a judgment by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi which partially allowed the respondent's second appeal. The dispute arose from an agreement to sell a property between Mst. Maria Siddique, a minor at the time, and the appellant. The appellant sought specific performance of the agreement after Mst. Maria Siddique and her brother failed to transfer the property through a registered sale deed. The trial court initially decreed in favor of the appellant, but the appellate court overturned the decision. The High Court partially allowed the appellant's suit, decreeing it for the share of Mst. Maria Siddique's brother but dismissing it for her share. The appellant argued that he was assured of Muhammad Amir's guardianship over Mst. Maria Siddique and questioned the High Court's interpretation of specific legal sections, claiming that the sale agreement shouldn't be voided. The respondents defended the High Court's judgment. The court referred to D.F. Mulla's Muhammadan Law, focusing on guardianship and property rights. It cited Section 359, which outlines de jure guardians of a minor's property, and Section 361, which defines de facto guardians. It emphasized that a de facto guardian lacks the power to transfer immovable property, rendering such transfers void. The court cited Mt. Auto vs. Mt. Reoti Kam (AIR 1936 All 837), highlighting the principle that agreements made by minors without proper authority are void. The court's decision rested on legal principles governing guardianship and property rights under Muhammadan Law, reaffirming that transfers of immovable property by de facto guardians are void. Thus, the appellant's suit for specific performance regarding Mst. Maria Siddique's share in the property was dismissed.

Summary: Guardian and Wards Act, 1890:Visitation schedule of the minors. The Act does not contemplate a set pattern of the visitation schedule for the minor inasmuch as it is silent on the frequency of visitation or the venue thereof, therefore, while chalking a visitation schedule, it must be kept in mind that limited hours of meeting within the Court premises is certainly not an appropriate solution inasmuch as it only enables a minor to identify his relation with the non-custodial parent without developing any bonding due to the lack of proper interaction. As such it is imperative to ensure that the non-custodial parent meets the child in a pleasant, homely and responsive environment on frequent and regular basis and a balanced annual visitation plan will benefit the minor as it would allow significant time to develop a meaningful relationship with both parents. Overnight stay in appropriate cases should be granted.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the orders of the learned Guardian Judge and the Additional District Judge, Sadiqabad, regarding the custody of a minor, Farah Bibi. Respondent No. 3 filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of the minor, claiming that the petitioner and other respondents illegally detained the child and refused to allow contact between the respondent and her minor daughter. The trial court ruled in favor of Respondent No. 3, and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner is the real mother of the minor Farah Bibi and entitled to custody. ----2- Whether Shabbir Ahmad is the real father of the minor, which would affect the custody decision. ----3- Whether the trial court’s findings and the subsequent appeal dismissal were based on proper legal grounds, and whether the concurrent findings should be interfered with. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the minor Farah Bibi is the biological daughter of Respondent No. 3, based on the documentary evidence and the statement made by Shabbir Ahmad in previous legal proceedings. Shabbir Ahmad had unequivocally stated that Farah Bibi was adopted from Respondent No. 3 immediately after her birth, which the petitioner did not challenge, thus rendering the custody of the minor with the petitioner legally inappropriate. The court further highlighted that, under Islamic principles and the law, the natural mother is the rightful guardian of the child. The court emphasized that admitted facts (such as the biological parentage) do not require further proof. The petitioner had no direct blood relation with the minor, and the welfare of the child rested with the biological mother. Since the petitioner had already handed over the child’s custody to Respondent No. 3, the court found no merit in the petition. The court concluded that no material irregularities or jurisdictional defects were present in the decisions of the lower courts. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through LRs v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi (1991 SCMR 2300) Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, N.W.F.P. Peshawar and 2 Others v. Mazhar Hussain & 2 Others (PLD 2004 SC 682) Mst. Rehmat and others Vs. Mst. Zubaida Begum and others (2021 SCMR 1534) Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Vs. Aziz ur Rehman Chaudhary and another (2016 SCMR 14) Mrs. Shaukat Khalid Vs. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others (1991 SCMR 19) Shabana Naz Vs. Muhammad Saleem (2014 SCMR 343) Mst. Beena Vs. Raja Muhammad and others (PLD 2020 SC 508) Zulfiqar Ali Vs. Judge, Family Court & 7 Others (2007 MLD 1710)

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S.25---Custody of minors---Right of father vis-?-vis maternal grandmother---Scope---Maternal grandmother of minor assailed orders passed by courts below whereby minor'scustody was granted to her real father/respondent---Validity---Mother of the minor had diedand her natural guardian had sought custody of the minor which was allowed by the courts---Nothing was alleged against the respondent which could qualify or disentitle him fromcustody of the minor girl---Respondent was educated and did not suffer from anydisqualification envisaged by law---Respondent, right from the inception was vigorouslypursuing the remedies to obtain the custody of his daughter---Contention of petitioner thatrespondent had no feelings towards his daughter and he had deliberately left the daughter atthe house of the petitioners after the death of his wife had no force---Constitutional petitionwas dismissed.Nasir Raza v. Additional District Judge Jhelum 2018 SCMR 590 rel.(b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S.17---Matters to be considered by the Court in appropriate guardian---Scope---Whiledealing with the question of custody of minor, the paramount consideration before the Courtof law is the welfare of minor and the welfare of minor cannot be jeopardized on any otherconsideration.(c) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------Preamble & S.17---Provisions of Evidence Act, 1872 and Code of Civil Procedure not toapply---Scope---Family Courts, which are creation of Family Courts Act, 1964, have toformulate their own procedure---Provisions of C.P.C. are not applied in the context---Legislature has intentionally kept the provisions of C.P.C. not applicable in the proceedingsbefore the Family Court in order to expedite the proceedings and for early disposal of casesso that the litigants before the Family Court e.g. family members, husband or spouses shouldnot suffer the agony of prolonged litigation.Farzana Rasool v. Dr. Muhammad Bashir 2011 SCMR 1361 and Muhammad TabishNaeem Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lahore 2014 SCMR 1365 rel.

Summary: The appellant, who is the real sister of a mentally disordered person (referred to as the "ward"), was appointed as the guardian of the person and manager of the ward's property by the Court of Protection in Multan under the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001. The appellant filed two applications seeking permission to sell the ward's vacant plot, stating that it does not generate income for the ward's financial needs. The Court of Protection dismissed both applications without conducting a proper inquiry, expressing concerns about misappropriation and lack of details about the property. The appellant challenged the decisions, arguing that the Court of Protection failed to appreciate the law and overlooked the fact that the vacant plot yielded no income. The court examined the provisions of the Mental Health Ordinance and emphasized that the court's duty is to protect the interests of mentally disordered persons. It found that the Court of Protection did not conduct a meaningful inquiry into the ward's interests or the nature of the property. The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant to seek permission to sell the property, and suggested measures for the Court of Protection to ensure proper utilization of the sale proceeds for the ward's benefit. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

Summary: [Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Section 12 G&W Interim Custody Modified. )] The learned Civil & Family Judge shall fix any two days in a month for the meeting of father-respondent No.1 with the minor baby Dua, and in the meanwhile, petitioner-mother shall not take away the custody of minor out of the jurisdiction of the learned Guardian and Wards Court without intimation to the concerned Court. However, the respondent-father shall have visitation rights i.e. Birthdays, Eid occasions, and summer and winter vacations and arrangements shall be made by the learned Family Court upon filing appropriate application by the respondent-father and the learned Family Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate order on such application concerning the date, time and place of meeting of minor with respondent-father, however, that arrangement is subject to the observation made by this Court as discussed in the preceding paragraph and also subject to payment of maintenance of the minor, which has already been done by the learned Family Court.

Summary: Guardian and Ward/Custody of Minor---The petitioner was a cab driver working in Saudi Arabia, and he got married to Mst. Kausar Naseem, with whom he had three children. Unfortunately, his wife suffered from burn injuries in an accident and later passed away. During her hospitalization, the maternal grandfather took custody of the minor children and continued to have custody until the time of filing the petition.The petitioner claimed that he made efforts to regain custody but was unsuccessful, leading him to file a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of the minors based on his preferential right as the father. The Family Court granted him custody, but on appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the decision, and the High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, considering the welfare of the minors as the paramount consideration.The petitioner argued that he is the natural guardian and has the preferential right to custody, and he would reside in Pakistan to take care of the minors. However, the Court noted that the petitioner's previous behavior and attitude towards his wife and children were not satisfactory, and the minors expressed their reluctance to live with him. The Court emphasized that the welfare of the minors is of paramount consideration as per the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.Considering the circumstances, the Court dismissed the petition but maintained the visitation schedule previously ordered by the Family Court for the grandparents, which would now apply to the petitioner.

Summary: Scope of choice of a minor qua his/her guardianship

Summary: Grievance canvassed by respondent is that he is resident of Ward No.6 but his vote has been shifted to Ward No.7 without his knowledge. If this is the position then he should have resorted to the procedure contemplated under the law for the correction of electoral rolls. Chapter IV of the Elections Act, 2017 deals with the electoral rolls and provides a self-explanatory mechanism for preparation and correction of electoral rolls. The ?respondent? never resorted to the said procedure till submission of his nomination papers. In terms of Section 39 of the Act ibid certain restrictions have been placed on the revision, correction and transfer of the vote from one electoral area to another. Preparation and correction of electoral roll undoubtedly a time bound process. The ?respondent? is in fact asking the Court to put the cart before the horse. As the ?respondent? was suffering with a defect of substantial nature, so he cannot be allowed to contest the election from Ward No.6.