Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 722 of 1984, in Civil Petition for Special -------------------

(In the matter of clarification of order, dated 6‑6‑1984 of supreme Court of Pakistan).

‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25‑‑Custody of minor‑‑Order of Supreme Court regarding custody of minor‑‑Petition for clarification of‑‑Supreme Court by a finding entitling mother to custody of child and allowing father to keep child over weak‑ends with direction that mother of child would cause child to continue her studies in her present school and in case of any difficulties in complying with order of Supreme Court matter was directed to be brought to attention of Guardian Judge who was authorised to make any modification in said direction of Supreme Court in light of circumstances brought to his notice after hearing parties‑‑After Supreme Court passed an order its implementation including interpretation was function of executing Court/Guardian Judge who was empowered to decide any difficulty concerning affairs of minor during period she was to be tossed between mother and father after hearing parties keeping, in view welfare of minor in every‑ matter brought before him‑‑Application filed before Supreme Court for seeking clarification, held, was misconceived‑‑Petition dismissed.

Petitioners in person.

Wasim Sajjad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 6th May, 1985.

.‑‑This is an application seeking clarification of this Court's order, dated 9‑6‑1984.

By the said order the mother (Mst. Surriya Jabeen) was found entitled to the custody of the minor child (Rahila Riaz) but the father (and his mother) were allowed to keep the child over the week‑ends. In this connection it was observed:

"Mst. Surriya Jabeen shall hand over the custody of the child to the father, Muhammad Riaz, petitioner No. 1 herein, or his mother Mst. Ghulam Fatima, petitioner No. 2 herein, on every Thursday at about 10 a.m. in the presence of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge, Sargodha. Muhammad Riaz, petitioner No. 1 or Mst. Ghulam Fatima, petitioner No. 2 shall return the custody of the child on Saturday at about same time to the mother again in the presence of the learned Senior Civil Judge/ Guardian Judge, Sargodha."

It was further directed that the father or his mother shall not "take the child out of the limits of Sargodha during the week‑ends when the child will be in their custody".

With regard to the schooling of the child it was ordered that Mst. Surriya Jabeen "will cause the child to continue her studies in her present school".

It was added that:

"In case there is any difficulty in complying with this direction, the matter may be brought to the attention of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge, Sargodha, who can make any modification in the aforesaid direction in the light of the circumstances brought to his notice; however, after hearing both the parties."

The question has arisen whether the above power given to the Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge, Sargodha relates only to the last mentioned direction concerning the schooling of the child, but also with regard to the earlier directions contained in the order

We feel that this application is misconceived. After this Court has passed an order its implementation (including its interpretation) is the function of the executing Court. Any difficulty which may have arisen with regard to the implementation of this Court's order should have, in the first instance, been addressed to the Guardian Judge and not brought before this Court straightaway. Be that as it may, the clear intent of this Court's order is that any difficulty which might arise concerning the affairs of the minor child during the period that she is going to be tossed between the mother and the father should be referred, in the first instance, for resolution to the Guardian Judge who will be empowered to decide the same in the light of all the circumstances existing when the problem is brought before him and that in so doing he may even modify any direction contained in this Court's order, dated 9‑6‑1984, but this can be done by him only after hearing both the parties and keeping in view the welfare of the minor in every matter brought before him.

This application, with these observations, is dismissed.

M. Y. H Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.