Guardian Judge has parental jurisdiction over minor
PLJ 2004 · Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)
This case involved a custody dispute over two young children after their father died. The mother had left the matrimonial home due to strained relations with her husband before his death by suicide. After his death, she attended the funeral but was later made to leave the household without her children, who remained with the paternal family. She approached the Guardian Judge seeking custody under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, and also asked for interim (temporary) custody while the main case was pending. The trial court granted her interim custody, and this was upheld on appeal. The paternal side then challenged this before the Lahore High Court, arguing there was no urgent need to change custody and that they were better off financially.
The High Court dismissed the challenge. It held that a Guardian Judge does not need to show urgency before granting interim custody under Section 12 of the Act; the law should be interpreted liberally, and the judge has broad parental jurisdiction to act in the child's interest at any time. The paramount consideration is always the welfare of the minor, taking into account factors like age and sex. The court emphasized that young children need their mother's love and care, especially since she had not remarried, and that a mother's bond cannot be substituted by a grandmother's care. It also ruled that interim custody arrangements should not be disturbed without compelling reasons. The court directed the main custody case to be decided quickly, within one month.
یہ مقدمہ دو کمسن بچوں کی تحویل کے تنازع سے متعلق ہے جو ان کے والد کی وفات کے بعد پیدا ہوا۔ والدہ اپنے شوہر کے ساتھ تعلقات کشیدہ ہونے کی وجہ سے، اس کی خودکشی سے موت سے پہلے ہی، سسرال کا گھر چھوڑ چکی تھی۔ شوہر کی وفات کے بعد وہ جنازے میں شریک ہوئی مگر بعد میں اسے بچوں کے بغیر گھر سے جانے پر مجبور کر دیا گیا، اور بچے دادا کے خاندان کے پاس ہی رہے۔ اس نے گارڈین اینڈ وارڈز ایکٹ، 1890 کے تحت تحویل حاصل کرنے کے لیے گارڈین جج سے رجوع کیا اور ساتھ ہی یہ درخواست بھی کی کہ مقدمے کے زیرِ التوا رہنے تک اسے عارضی (انٹیرم) تحویل دی جائے۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے اسے عارضی تحویل دے دی اور اپیل میں بھی اس فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا گیا۔ اس پر دادا کے خاندان نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں اس فیصلے کو چیلنج کیا اور موقف اختیار کیا کہ تحویل تبدیل کرنے کی کوئی فوری ضرورت نہیں تھی اور یہ