Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 463 of 1982, decided on 26th May, 1985.
(Against the Judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21‑1‑1982, passed in Civil Revision No. 658 of 1981).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25‑‑Custody of ward with mother impugned‑‑Petitioner (father) unable to show that welfare of minor daughter does not lie with her mother‑‑Petitioner (father of minor) remarried while respondent‑mother not remarried‑‑Order holding that welfare of minor lies in her mother, maintained‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Laqua Haider Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Nazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 26th May, 1985.
‑Ghulam Hussain petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 27‑1‑1982, dismissing his civil revision in a guardianship matter.
2. The petitioner was married to Mst. Bakhan respondent. A daughter (Mst. Zainab) was born out of their wedlock. Thereafter, differences arose between the parties which led to divorce. Mst. Zainab was only 3 years old at that time. The petitioner filed an application for her custody under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in which he made wild allegations against her ex‑wife, including her being a woman of bad character. The application was, however, dismissed. The petitioner then approached the High Court. His civil revision was dismissed.
3. The main ground pressed before the High Court was that the respondent (mother of Mst. Zainab) had been suffering from Tuberculosis. No medical evidence was produced to establish this allegation. As stated earlier the civil revision was dismissed by the High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment. He has not been able to show that welfare of the minor does not lie with her mother. On being questioned he also informed us that while the petitioner (Ghulam Hussain father of the minor) has remarried, the mother of the minor, Mst. Bakhan, respondent has not remarried so far. This fact also goes in favour of the respondent and we feel that the Courts below have rightly held that the welfare of the minor lies in her mother.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.
M.I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer