Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 1506 2010 SLD 1506 2010 YLR 513
Sindh High Court
Constitution Petition No. S-471 of 2008, decision & hearing Dated: 04-12-2009.
SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Abdullah No.1.

MST. ANEETA TANVEER

VS

MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND 3 OTHERS

Law: Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Section: 7,10,25

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 491

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5,Schedule

Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 7, 10 & 25---West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Custody of minor---Marriage between the parties was dissolved by way of divorce through written deed---Dissolution of marriage was with mutual consent---Compromise was entered into between the parties with regard to custody of minor on application filed by the petitioner under S.491, Cr. P. C.---Custody of minor was with maternal grandfather of the minor by compromise as well as under the orders of two courts below---Family Court would exercise parental jurisdiction and must consider all aspects relevant to custody of minor; and decide as to what would be in the best interest of the minor---Any previous compromise or any previous order of the court, could not bind hands of the Family Court---Court could recall its previous order, provided sufficient grounds were made that after previous order, what were new and evolving circumstances keeping in view interest of minor---Compromise between the parties, must be looked at by the Family Court, but was not conclusive and binding, as far as Family Court was concerned---Court in appropriate circumstances, could pass an order, even setting at nought the compromise---Prime responsibility and obligation of Family Court was welfare of the minor, which was supreme and should not, in any circumstances be lost sight of---In the present case there were factors which had been considered by the courts below which clearly emerged; firstly, petitioner mother of minor had no source of income; secondly, she had remarried and had been blessed with three children after her remarriage; thirdly, her second husband was a stranger as far as minor was concerned; fourthly her second husband had not come in witness box to depose about his income and whether he was willing to shoulder responsibilities of minor; fifthly maternal grandfather was a retired servant and received pension; sixthly a maternal grandfather had his own house, whereas mother and step-father of minor lived in a rented house; seventhly real father of minor had no objection…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492