| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLG 3152 = 1973 SLD 3152 = 1973 PLD 442 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 577-A of 1971, decided on 8th November 1971.
Presented By: Aftab Hussain, J
Riasat Ali for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Hussain for
Respondent.
Civil Revision No. 577-A of 1971, decided on 8th November 1971.
Presented By: Aftab Hussain, J
Riasat Ali for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Hussain for
Respondent.
NEMAT ULLAH QURESHI AND ANOTHER ---Petitioners
VERSUS
Mst. BALQIS SITARA-Respondent
Law: Guardian and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)
Section: 25, 12, 10
Guardians and Wards Act' (VIII of 1890), Ss. 25, 12 & 10 Interpretation of S. 12-Provision of S. 12 not restricted only to cases where application for appointment of guardian, under S. 10, pending-Application under S. 12 for temporary custody maintain able in any proceeding under Act where such order be considered necessary in welfare of minor-Pending proceeding under S. 25, Court directing grand father of minors to let their mother have access to them for two days in a month-Such order one of temporary custody of minors. There is nothing in section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 restricting it to a case where an application for appointment of guardian under section 10 of the Act is pending. Merely because this section is in Chapter II of the Act which relates to Appointment and Declaration of Guardians, it cannot be asserted that it must be confined to a case which has been started with an application under section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, as there are no words limiting its applicabi lity only to cases falling under Chapter II. The subsequent words used in section 12 are wide enough to cover any proceed ing under the Guardians and Wards Act where application for temporary custody or interim protection of person and -property of a minor is considered necessary by the Guardian Judge for the advancement of the welfare of the minor. Even if by process of some reasoning it may be said that section 12 as not applicable to proceedings under section 25 of the Act, the guardianship Court cannot be deprived of its inherent parental jurisdiction to pass such order as and when necessary for the advancement of the welfare of the minor and for promoting his interest. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is, therefore, open to the Guardian Judge, to pass any order interim or final, which may promote the welfare -of the minor. Mumtaz Begum v. Azmatullah P L D 1959 Lah. 750 considered. Inder Singh v. Kartar Kaur A I R 1929 Lah. 487 ; Mst. Nazir Begum v. Ghulam Qadir Khan and others A ( R 1938 Lab. 313 ; Wadhava Singh v. Mst. Malan 13 P R 1897 ; Khalida Shafqat Khanum v. Mahmood Sadiq P L D 1965 Lab. 389 ; Sayed Ahmad Ali v. Ghulam…