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.
1986 M L D 891
[Lahore]
Before Abdul Shakurul Salam, J
SHAFI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner
Versus
GUARDIAN JUDGE, OKARA and others‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition N o.696 of 1984, decided on 6th April, 1984.
Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)
‑‑‑Ss.17 & 25‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.9‑‑.Custody of minor‑‑Spouses separated after divorce‑‑Custody of minor daughter,
3 years old, wanted by father on ground that her mother at time of divorce agreed to give up custody of child‑‑Interest of minor, held, would be relevant and dominant factor in deciding custody of more and not statement of one or other party‑‑Conduct of father of minor not showing that he was very keen for her custody‑‑As he had been slow in filing contstitutional petition which he could have filed much earlier‑‑Interference in orders of Courts below maintaining custody of minor daughter with mother declined by High Court.
Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashir for Petitioner.
Petitioner and his wife, respondent No.3 separated and stand divorced. The petitioner filed an application for custody of a minor daughter aged 31 years at the time of the divorce, on 3‑3‑1982. The application was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Okara on 19‑5‑1983. The petitioner's appeal had been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge‑I, Okara on 1‑9‑1983. The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition on 19‑2‑1984:
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent‑mother had agreed to give up the custody of the minor and, therefore, the custody of the minor should have been given to the petitioner.
3. The contention has no force. The learned Courts below were quite right in holding that it is the interest of the minor, which is relevant and dominant factor, in deciding the custody of the minor. The statement of one or the other party is not of great significance. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 1‑9‑1983. This Constitutional petition had been filed on 19‑2‑1984. Copy of the order was obtained on 22‑9 1983. The conduct does not show that the petitioner has been very keen for the custody of the minor daughter because he were so, he would have filed the writ petition much earlier. In the circumstances of the case, no interference‑is called for. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer