Relations between mother and father in relation to minors with the mother and mother of the Guardians and Wards Act (Sec. II 18 of 90I), section 25, were governed by an agreement, in which There were also hard and soft provisions. Strict provisions were clearly and clearly stated, while soft provisions depended on the mutual goodwill of the parties, leaving much room for interpretation of words and their intentions. On the analysis of the parties' conduct, none of them will be exposed. The parties came to the court to punish one another for contempt of court; the interest of minors would not be presented in any sense of the word, if in family matters there was a need to punish one or the other or both. When the order was approved, it was a punishment for parental jurisdiction. Neglecting the court of either father, mother, or both will not advance the cause of the minor, nor will it lead to the over-loyalty of the gentlemen mentioned above. The winner of the contract will rarely be loyal to each other in the justice system of the winner and loser, and in the present case the losers will eventually be bound by the judicial process, therefore, in the matter under guardianship and wards section 25 proceedings. Have to do. The Act, 1890, was already pending in the lower court of the parties. The parties were instructed to strictly adhere to the stringent provisions of the aforesaid agreement and, in relation to their other clauses, could make appropriate requests for decision before settling the petitions. Accordingly \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
