Summary: The petitioner filed a guardianship petition for the custody of the minors, which was initially accepted by the Guardian Judge, Gujrat, on January 14, 2016. However, the respondents (No. 3 and 4) appealed this decision, and it was overturned by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, on March 3, 2016.The petitioner argues that the appellate court failed to consider that a step-mother should not be preferred over the real mother. She contends that her second marriage should not disqualify her from having custody, especially since respondent No. 3, the father, often remains absent to earn a livelihood.The respondents argue that the petitioner waived her custody rights during a compromise reached in the court of the Judge Family Court, Wazirabad. They claim that her brother is involved in a criminal case, making it unsafe for the minors to stay with her.The judge notes that the welfare of the minors is of utmost importance in custody cases. Documents provided by respondents No. 3 and 4 indicate that the minors are receiving proper care and education under respondent No. 3's care.The judge cites legal precedent indicating that the mother's second marriage can impact custody rights, especially if the step-father is not within a prohibitory degree of relation with the minors.The judge also mentions that the compromise reached in the Judge Family Court, Wazirabad, was binding, and the petitioner was estopped from challenging it.Considering the growing age of the daughter and the financial stability of the parties involved, the judge determines that custody with respondent No. 3 is appropriate.The judge dismisses the petition, allowing the petitioner to file an application for visitation rights as per the observations of the appellate court.

Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Interim Custody 10 days allowed In Section 12 G&W by Civil Judge ,Maintained by ADJ and High Court . Petition dismissed----In the case of Syed Zia Abbas vs. Mst. Mahiya and others, the petitioner contested the order granting interim custody of the minor to Mst. Mahiya. Represented by M/s Farhatullah & Syed Ahsan Imam Rizvi, the petitioner's counsel argued that the decision overlooked the minor's welfare, citing legal precedent (2016 SCMR 2023). The petitioner's counsel further questioned the jurisdiction of the XII Civil Judge, Karachi, Central, emphasizing that the judge did not consider crucial aspects of the case. Despite Mst. Mahiya asserting her rights as the minor's mother, the judge upheld the interim custody decision, emphasizing the paramountcy of the child's welfare in custody matters. While the petitioner raised factual controversies, the court maintained that they could not be resolved at this stage, echoing the principles established in Muhammad Younis Khan and others vs. Government of NWFP and others (1993 SCMR 618). Consequently, the court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, affirming the interim custody decision and underscoring the natural guardian's right to interim custody unless prejudicial to the minor's welfare.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------Ss.17 & 25---Suit for custody of minor girl---Mother marrying a person stranger to thefemale ward---Effect---Welfare of minor---Scope---Father contended that as mother of femaleminor had contracted marriage with a stranger to the minor, she had lost her entitlement for thecustody of female minor and that appellate Court had wrongly given custody of female minorto the mother---Mother contended that appellate Court had rightly passed judgment in herfavour---Validity---Prime consideration for custody of minor was welfare of the minor---Whiledetermining the matter of custody of female ward, in terms of S.17 of Guardians and WardsAct, 1890, question of chastity of female minor was to be jealously guarded and the lady whohad contracted second marriage with stranger would loose her right of custody---Father was,in the present case, entitled for custody of minor daughter in the wake of the fact that the motherhad contracted second marriage with a person who admittedly was totally stranger to the femaleminor---Judgment and decree of the appellate Court was set aside and decree of trial Court forcustody of minor to the father was upheld---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.Mst. Akbar Bibi v. Shoukat Ali 1981 CLC 78; Mst. Nazir v. Hafiz Ghulam Mustafaand others 1981 SCMR 2000 and Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343 ref.

Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Section 7, 8 and 25)-----The mother, has filed an application seeking permission to travel to the United Kingdom with her son, Dinesh Kumar, during the summer vacations. In response, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Chandio, counsel for Respondent No. 3, filed a counter affidavit objecting to the application. Mr. Neel Keshav, representing the petitioner, argued that Dr. Mohan is the biological mother of Dinesh Kumar, who has been living with her since she was ousted from the house by Respondent No. 3. He emphasized the emotional attachment between Dinesh Kumar and his maternal uncles in the UK and requested permission for their travel, assuring their return before the start of the school term. However, Mr. Chandio contended that Dr. Mohan may be conspiring to permanently relocate Dinesh Kumar to the UK, keeping him away from Respondent No. 3. He raised concerns about the lack of travel documents and emotional attachment claimed by the petitioner, stating that Dr. Mohan had not disclosed whether she had prepared another passport for Dinesh Kumar. He argued that under British law, obtaining a visa takes at least three months, and since Dr. Mohan had not applied for one, the application should be dismissed. After hearing both parties and reviewing the available evidence, the court noted that Dr. Mohan is the biological mother of Dinesh Kumar, whose custody is yet to be adjudicated by the court. The court observed that Dr. Mohan had failed to provide necessary documents and that there was insufficient time to obtain a visa before the end of the summer vacation. Therefore, the court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the rights of both parties are yet to be decided in the ongoing petition. The court's decision is tentative and will not prejudice either party. The case was adjourned for further proceedings.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)---Immigration---Exit Control List.----Ss. 12 & 25---Parental jurisdiction of guardian court---Scope---Father sought direction ofHigh Court to place name of his son/minor on Exit Control List (ECL) to ensure minor not toleave territorial jurisdiction of High Court---Mother raised objection on maintainability ofconstitutional petition and contended that the matter was already sub judice before GuardianCourt who had parental jurisdiction for the matter in hand---Validity---Record revealed thatfather himself had admitted that he had already filed petition under S. 25 of the Guardians andWards Act, 1890 for the custody of the minor in which the Guardian Court had restrained themother to remove the minor from the territorial jurisdiction of the court without priorpermission---Guardian Court had also directed the mother to produce the minor along with hispassport before the Guardian Court---Record also depicted that, with the mutual consent of theparties before the Guardian Judge, a meeting of father/petitioner was arranged with the minor inpresence of Bailiff by the Guardian Court---Appearance of the parties with consent before theGuardian Court, due to which the father/petitioner had met the minor and had also obtained orderfor staying the guardianship of minor pursuant to the filing of constitutional petition, prime facieshowed that there was no apprehension of removing the minor out of country---High Courtobserved that Guardian Court, who was seized of the matter, shall decide all pendingapplications of the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law---Constitutionalpetition was dismissed accordingly.Sardar Hussain and others v. Mst. Parveen Umer and others PLD 2004 SC 357 ref.

Summary: Background:Mst. Khursheed Begum, represented by her special attorney Zia-ur-Rehman, and Shafiq-ur-Rehman filed an appeal against the judgment of the Shariat Court dated 22.12.2015. The appeal arose from a dispute over the custody of a minor child. Respondent Mst. Shabnam Naz, the mother of the child, had previously filed applications for appointment of a guardian and custody of the minor in 2008. Initially, the Guardian Judge granted custody to the mother, but later, a compromise was reached between the mother and the child's grandfather, who subsequently passed away. The mother filed a fresh application for custody in 2015, citing changed circumstances due to the death of the child's grandfather.----Issues:Whether the changed circumstances, including the death of the child's grandfather, warranted a reconsideration of custody arrangements.Whether the mother, despite previous actions, was now the most suitable guardian for the child's welfare.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court held that, given the changed circumstances after the death of the child's grandfather, the welfare of the child is best served by the mother. It emphasized the mother's education, financial stability, and the absence of interest from the father in seeking custody. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Shariat Court, granting custody to the mother. No costs were awarded.----Citations/Precedents:Irshad Begum vs. Mirza Muhammad Haleem and others [2003 YLR 3245]Shaheen Akhtar vs. Muneer Ahmed and 2 others [2003 SCR 502]Mst. Shazia Kosar vs. Nisar Ahmed [2014 SCR 572]Zainab Bibi vs. Zaffar Iqbal [PLJ 2012 SC(AJ&K) 26]Bashir Bibi vs. Ghuam Rasool and others [2004 SCR 561]Javed Iqbal vs. Mst. Kalsoom Bibi [1996 SCR 33]

Summary: The petitioner through the instant constitutional petition has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (South) while dismissing the family Appeal filed by petitioner upheld the order passed by learned Family Judge Karachi (South) in G & W Application; returned the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1980, under order VII Rule 10, CPC. Order VII Rule 10 CPC & Provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and The West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965, in the light of guide lines set by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Anne Zahra vs. Tahir Ali Khilji and 2 others(2001 SCMR 2000). And Major Muhammad Khalid Karim Vs. Mst. Saadia Yaqub and others (PLD 2012 SC 66) were discussed.This Constitutional Petition was disposed of directing the learned Family Judge Karachi (South) to rehear the case of the petitioner and decide the question of territorial jurisdiction afresh, inter alia, in the light of Rules framed under the Family Courts Act, 1964.

Summary: The petitioner had filed a guardian petition seeking custody of the minors, but the Guardian Judge, dismissed the petition. The judge allowed the petitioner to have custody of the minors on specific weekends, during Eid-ul-Azha for three days, for the month of July every year during summer vacations, and in the last week of December every year during winter vacation. The petitioner appealed this decision, and the appeal was dismissed with a modification allowing the petitioner to see his children only once a month on Saturdays. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner filed writ petitions to challenge the custody arrangements. In the judgment, the court observed that the welfare of the children was of paramount importance in determining custody disputes. It noted that the children were currently in the custody of their mother, who had provided them with care, attention, and a stable environment. The court ultimately found that the children's best interests were served by allowing them to remain in the custody of their mother, with the petitioner being granted specific visitation rights as per the schedule established by the Guardian Court. The petitions were dismissed with this modification.

Summary: The respondent, Shamim Akhtar (their maternal grandmother), had filed a petition under Section 8 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890, seeking to be appointed as their guardian for both their property and personal affairs. The appellant contested this petition and also filed a Guardian Petition under Section 25 of the same Act, seeking custody of the minors. After hearing both parties and evaluating the evidence presented, the trial court granted custody of both minors to Ghulam Mustafa, the father. However, the appellate court partially accepted Shamim Akhtar's appeal, granting her custody of Sharmeen, the daughter. Ghulam Mustafa then filed a writ petition challenging the appellate court's judgment, and Shamim Akhtar filed a connected writ petition challenging both trial and appellate court judgments. The court reviewed the evidence and determined that Ghulam Mustafa had no disqualifications that would prevent him from obtaining custody of the minors. The court emphasized that the welfare of the minors was the paramount consideration in custody matters. As a result, the court confirmed that Ghulam Mustafa was entitled to custody and established a visitation schedule to allow the minors to spend time with their maternal grandmother. The connected writ petition was dismissed based on these findings.

Summary: Background: This case concerns a custody dispute between divorced parents over two minor daughters. The mother filed a petition to quash a criminal FIR filed by the father under Sections 363/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), accusing her of unlawfully withholding the children after a family visit. The father alleged that the mother refused to return the children and thus filed a complaint with the police, resulting in a criminal case. The mother argued that, as the natural guardian, she could not be criminally charged for keeping custody of her children, and further alleged that the father, a Supreme Court employee, used his influence to register the FIR. -----Issues: 1- Whether an FIR can be filed against a natural guardian (mother) for retaining custody of her own children under Sections 363/34 of PPC. -----2- Whether habeas corpus under Section 491 Cr.P.C. is applicable in custody disputes when children are with a natural guardian. -----3- Whether the mention of the father's employment with the Supreme Court in the FIR impacted the fairness of the trial. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled that the FIR was inappropriate and that the matter of custody should have been pursued through a Guardian Court, not through criminal proceedings. Since the mother, as a natural guardian, was lawfully entitled to custody, her refusal to hand over the children did not constitute kidnapping or an offense under Section 363 PPC. The court quashed the FIR, as the criminal charge was found baseless. Additionally, the father’s habeas corpus petition was dismissed, as Section 491 Cr.P.C. is not applicable for custody disputes when the minors are with a natural guardian. The court also expressed concerns about the mention of the father’s Supreme Court position in the FIR, suggesting it may have influenced the registration process. It directed that any future mention of a court in an FIR must first receive approval from the Registrar to avoid potential biases. -----Citations/Precedents: Kausar Parveen vs. The State [PLD 2008 Lahore 533] Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore vs. Muhammad Akram Khan [PLD 2013 SC 401] Rehmat Ali vs. Ahmad Din [1991 SCMR 185] Miraj Khan vs. Gul Ahmed [2000 SCMR 122] Muhammad Mansha vs. Station House Officer [PLD 2006 SC 598] Col. Shah Sadiq vs. Muhammad Ashiq [2006 SCMR 276] Emperor v. Kh. Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18] Shahnaz Begum vs. The Judges of High Court of Sind and Baluchistan [PLD 1971 SC 677] Mst Nadia Parveen vs. Mst Almas Noreen [PLD 2012 SC 758]