Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3304 = 1975 SLD 3304 = 1975 PLD 687
Lahore High Court
F. A. O. No. 127 of 1974, decided on 20th December 1974.
Presented By: Zakiuddin Pal, J
Nemat Ullah Quresht and another v. Mst. Bilqis Sitara P L D 1973 Lah. 442 fol. Mian Nazir Akhtar for Appellant. Falak Sher for S . M. Shafiq for
Respondent.

Haji MOHAMMAD JAMIL-Appellant

VERSUS

Mst. RAHILA NOSHEEN-Respondent

Law: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)

Section: 10, 12(l), 25

Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)  Ss. 10, 12(l) & 25-Custody of minor--Welfare-Bringing up of minor in atmosphere giving rise to growing up of hatred in minor's mind against his parents, may be father or mother-Not in welfare of minor ---Custody of minor handed over to mother-Mother not in mood of reconciliation with father-Estrangement between parties likely to give rise to hatred in child's mind against father if allowed to remain permanently with mother-Court, held, can in circumstances, direct mother or father, having child's custody to hand over his temporary custody to other party-Father, in circumstances of case allowed to see minor and be with him for at least three hours on two fixed days of each month at given hours and mother directed to make child available for such purpose at residence of her uncle. Date of hearing: 16th December 1974.                                                                                                                                JUDGMENT The facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for restoration of the custody of Muhammad Shafiq, his minor son. aged about 4J years at present. It is admitted that at the time when the application was filed he was living with his mother, the respondent in the case. The application as put in by the appellant was resisted by the respondent, who pleaded that it was not in the welfare of the minor to hand over his custody to the appellant. As many as four issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, out of which issue No. 3, with regard to the welfare of the minor, is relevant here. This issue has been found against the appellant and as such the application has been dismissed. He has now come up to the High Court and has challenged the validity of the impugned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register