Summary: Background: The respondents filed an application for the custody of minors before the Additional District Judge, Hajira, claiming they were the paternal grandparents and thus suitable guardians. The petitioner, who is the maternal grandmother and an American national, filed an application for the cancellation of the guardianship certificate, arguing that she was not made a party in the original proceedings and that she could better care for the minors. The trial court rejected her application, and the High Court upheld this decision. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was improperly excluded from the original guardianship proceedings. 2- Whether the application for cancellation of the guardianship certificate was filed within the appropriate time frame. 3- Whether the petitioner or the respondents are better suited to be the guardians of the minors. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Improper Exclusion: The court found that the petitioner was not a necessary party to the original guardianship application. The guardianship certificate was issued with the minors' welfare in mind, and the petitioner's exclusion did not invalidate the proceedings. --Timeliness: The petitioner's application for cancellation was deemed untimely. According to Rule 13 of the AJ&K Family Courts (Procedural) Rules, 1998, an application to set aside an ex-parte decision must be filed within 30 days of the decree, not from the date of knowledge. The court emphasized there is no provision for condonation of delay under this rule. --Best Interest of the Minors: The court concluded that the respondents, as the paternal grandparents, were best suited to be the guardians of the minors, given the petitioner's American residency and the stability provided by the respondents. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the trial court and the High Court. ----Citations/Precedents: 2012 SCR 341

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S. 25---Custody of minor---Visitation right---Scope---Petitioner/mother was aggrieved ofissuance of a schedule of meeting of the minor with her father---Contention of petitioner wasthat the minor had no attachment with her father and that the father did not regularlymaintain the minor---Validity---Father could not be denied the right of access to his minordaughter nor would he be considered an alien/enemy to her---Minor not only needed love,affection, care and attention of a mother but also the company and guiding hand of father---Negating the father of his right to meet his daughter would lead to emotional deprivation---Constitutional petition was dismissed.Mst. Madiha Younus v. Imran Ahmed 2018 SCMR 1991 ref.(b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S. 25---Custody of minor---Scope---Paramount consideration in the matter of custody ofminor is the welfare of minor.

Summary: ----Ss. 12 & 25---Custody of minors---Visitation rights---Modification of earlier visitationschedule chalked out by the Guardian Court which had attained finality due to reportedjudgment of High Court [(MRS. AMNA NAWAZ CASE, 2018 MLD 1303)]---Jurisdiction

Summary: The Guardian of the minor ward in order to seek permission to sell his property has to file application under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, in the same District Court that appointed him as Guardian of person and property of the minor in view of definition of "Court" provided in Section 4 subsection 5 (b) of the said Act and could not file the same application in court of another District on the pretext that as the property of the minor was situated in that District so in view of Section 9 (2) of the Act, the said Court would have jurisdiction to grant such permission, for the reason that the court that appointed the petitioner as Guardian of the ward in order to safeguard the welfare of minor would retain the jurisdiction over the property of the minor despite application for appointment of guardianship of the minor having been finally decided.

Summary: Background: Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The basis of dismissal was the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court as the minor was not residing at the address provided in Pakistan but was in the USA with respondent No.3 (Ms. Alina Hasanain, the petitioner's wife).Issues:Whether the trial court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Guardians and Wards Applications filed by Syed Raza Ali Shah.The proper legal provisions applicable for determining territorial jurisdiction in matters of guardianship and custody of minors.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court set aside the orders of both the lower courts and remanded the matter to the Court of learned XX-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South, for a rehearing on the question of territorial jurisdiction. It directed that the jurisdiction should be determined in light of the Family Courts Act, 1964, and the Rules framed thereunder, allowing both parties opportunities to prove their contentions with evidence. The trial court is expected to dispose of the Guardians and Wards Applications promptly.-----Citations/Precedents:Major Khalid Karim (PLD 2012 SC 66): Establishes that territorial jurisdiction in matters of guardianship and custody of minors is to be determined under the Family Courts Act and not the Guardians and Wards Act.Anne Zahra (2001 SCMR 2000): Clarifies that the question of territorial jurisdiction is to be decided under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.Scherezade Jamali (PLD 2018 Sindh 377): Discusses the importance of determining jurisdiction based on the minor's ordinary place of residence and requires factual determination through evidence.Faraz Alamgir (2017 YLR 994): Interprets "ordinary residence" in Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, emphasizing the consideration of more than mere temporary residences.Sumayyah Moses (PLD 2020 Lahore 716): States that children, wherever born of a Pakistani father, are deemed citizens of Pakistan by descent, influencing jurisdiction based on nationality.Additional cases cited include 1999 CLC 1623 [Lahore], 2011 CLC 146 [Lahore], 1998 MLD 1813 [Karachi], among others, that reinforce the principles related to jurisdiction, guardianship, and the welfare of minors in family law disputes.

Summary: Background: The petitioner and respondent were contesting a case for the appointment of a guardian for their minor child before the Guardian Judge Kotli. During the proceedings, both parties reached a compromise, agreeing on a visitation schedule. On April 2, 2019, the petitioner did not return the minor to the respondent as per the agreed schedule and filed another application for guardianship before the Family Court Hajira. The respondent then filed an application before the Guardian Judge Kotli, who ordered on August 17, 2020, that the minor be returned to the respondent, and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application for guardianship. The petitioner challenged this order before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeal, leading to the current petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the order dated August 17, 2020, by the Guardian Judge Kotli was an interim or final order. 2- Whether the appeal before the Shariat Appellate Bench and the Supreme Court is maintainable. 3- Whether the petitioner violated the terms of the agreement regarding the custody and visitation schedule of the minor. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the important legal questions raised by the parties. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the security amount within one month, failing which the leave granted order shall automatically stand rescinded. The case will proceed further according to law and be placed before the Acting Chief Justice for the constitution of the bench after its completion.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------Ss.12 & 25---Custody of minor---Interim custody, right of---Scope---Guardian Court,jurisdiction of---Father of minor had passed away---Guardian Court granted interim custodyof minor girl (aged 08 years) to the mother---Paternal grandparents invoked constitutionaljurisdiction of High Court against the said order---Held, that under S.12(1) of the Guardiansand Wards Act, 1890, the Guardian Judge was empowered to make interlocutory orders forproduction of minor and interim protection of his person and his property---Said power couldeven be exercised in the absence of an urgency---Company of grandfather obviously couldnot be a substitute of the mother---Custody of minor could not be allowed to shuttle betweenthe parties---Once the Guardian Judge had exercised its jurisdiction in granting interimcustody, the same was to be allowed to stay, unless there were compelling circumstances tochange the custody---Order of temporary custody of the minor being interim in nature wouldbe subject to the decision in the (main) guardian application under S.25 of Guardians andWards Act, 1890---Same could be varied, altered or rescinded by taking notice of allsubsequent events and welfare of minor---No illegality or infirmity was found in theimpugned order and judgment passed by the Guardian Court granting interim custody ofminor girl to mother---High Court , however, directed the Trial Court to pass an appropriateorder for production and visitation of minor to the grand-parents without disturbing herstudies---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Mst. Beena, sought custody of her son, Muhammad Rayyan, born in October 2012, from the respondent, Raj Muhammad, her former husband. The Family Judge initially granted custody to the mother, but the Peshawar High Court set aside this decision, relying on an agreement between the parties wherein Beena relinquished custody rights. Beena appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.---Issues:Whether an agreement relinquishing custody rights as part of a khula (dissolution of marriage) is legally valid.Whether a mother's physical disability can be a ground for denying custody.Whether the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that agreements surrendering custody rights as part of khula are void as they contravene Islamic principles of custody and public policy.The Court emphasized that a mother's physical disability cannot automatically disqualify her from custody, as the law prioritizes the best interest of the child.Relying on constitutional principles and Islamic teachings, the Court reaffirmed the importance of a mother's role in a child's upbringing and condemned derogatory language against disabled individuals.The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, ordering the respondent to hand over custody of Muhammad Rayyan to the petitioner within seven days.---Citations/Precedents:Razia Rehman v. Station House Officer (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 533)Asfandyar Khan Tareen v. Government of Punjab (PLJ 2018 Lahore 508)Articles 227, 25(3), 34, 35, and 31 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973Sections 23 and 25 of the Contract Act, 1872

Summary: Bail granted----In this legal petition under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in connection with FIR. The charges involve offenses 324 PPC, 334 PPC, 336 PPC, 377-A, including causing injuries with a hockey stick to the complainant's brother.The petitioner had previously sought bail, which was dismissed. Subsequently, he claimed juvenile status, and the trial court, after examining birth records, declared him a juvenile offender under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The judgment emphasized Pakistan's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the obligation to safeguard children's rights. It discussed the retrospective application of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, and the establishment of Juvenile Courts. The court noted that the delay in the trial is not attributable to the petitioner and cites international and domestic legal obligations to protect the rights of juveniles. It referred to the repealed Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, and the current Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, which reduced the statutory delay for bail eligibility to six months. The court acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial proceedings and the intention to record the complainant's statement through video link due to the complainant's residence abroad. The judgment underscored the petitioner's right to liberty and a speedy trial, granting post-arrest bail, subject to conditions.

Summary: In this case, a petitioner, who claimed to be the paternal grandmother, sought custody of her grandsons, "Mazhar" and "Faizan," aged 12 and 10, respectively, under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The petitioner argued that the minors' mother, respondent No. 3, had remarried, and the father of the minors, the petitioner's son, was paralyzed. The court observed that the lower courts correctly considered the evidence and concluded that the minors' welfare was best served by remaining in the custody of their real mother. The courts highlighted that the petitioner did not deny her remarriage, which was considered a negative factor. The court cited legal precedents emphasizing that the paramount consideration in custody matters is the welfare of the minors, regardless of the entitlement or disentitlement of a parent. The court found no legal error in the lower courts' decisions, noting that the mother had been caring for the minors since their birth, and any change in custody at this stage could negatively impact the minors' mental and physical well-being. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.