| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4744 = 1965 SLD 4744 = 1965 PLD 399 |
West Pakistan Lahore
First Appeal from Order No. 91 of 1962, decided on 2nd March 1964.
Presented By: A. R. Sheikh, J
Sh. Ghias Muhammad for Appellant. Ehsanul Haq for
Respondent.
First Appeal from Order No. 91 of 1962, decided on 2nd March 1964.
Presented By: A. R. Sheikh, J
Sh. Ghias Muhammad for Appellant. Ehsanul Haq for
Respondent.
Mst. AZIZ BEGUM-Appellant
VERSUS
FAIZ MUHAMMAD-Respondent
Law: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)
Section: 25
Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)------ -----S. 25-Application for custody of minors by alleged father-Question involving existence or validity of marriage between alleged father and mother-Guardian Judge has no jurisdiction to pronounce upon such question Guardian Judge has limited and special jurisdiction tinder Act and is not a Court of civil jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Code Guardian Judge to direct father to have recourse to civil Court Interim arrangement for custody of minors. A Guardian Judge is not competent to pronounce over the validity or existence of marriage, which is a function of the civil Court. A Guardian Judge giving a decision on this question exceeds his jurisdiction because the powers and the jurisdiction vested in a Guardian Court is under the Guardians and Wards Act neither more nor less. It is not a Court of civil jurisdiction as understood in the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, any decision which should have been made by a civil Court cannot be adjudicated upon by the Guardian Judge exercising his special jurisdiction as a special Tribunal under the said Act. Where the Guardian Judge, while considering the application of alleged father claiming custody of the minors, gave a finding as to the absence of a valid marriage between the minors' mother and the alleged father: Held, that such a finding by the Guardian Judge was without jurisdiction. The proper course for the Guardian Judge would have been to direct the applicant to the civil Court so as to obtain a declaration in his favour as to the validity of the alleged wedlock and to make alternative arrangements for the custody of the children meanwhile. K. Somakka v. K. P. Ramiah I L R 36 Mad: 39 ref. As an interim arrangement for custody of minors, the High Court ordered that the elder girl be removed from the custody of the another, "who was admittedly a prostitute" and was carrying on the vocation of dancing and singing, and placed "for the present" in Darul Shafqat of Anjuman Hamayat Islam; her maintenance expenses to be paid by the alleged father and that the younger girl and boy "will…