1991 PLP 353 (SCMR)
Mst. KANEEZ SUGHRA — Petitioner Versus Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 353 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. KANEEZ SUGHRA — Petitioner Versus Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 353 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 353 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 353 (SCMR) (Mst. KANEEZ SUGHRA — Petitioner Versus Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1989.
- Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 21-12-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Writ Petition No. 1602 of 1988).
S.25
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Three Courts below concurrently found that it was in the welfare of minor that his custody should be with his father
No case for interference with concurrent findings of Courts below having been made out, Supreme Court converting petition into appeal disposed it of in terms of offer made by father/respondent. Respondent in person. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 for the custody of his minor son aged about 9 years now. The learned Guardian Judge allowed his application after holding that it was in the welfare of the minor that his custody should be with his father. This finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal. The petitioner's writ petition in the High Court failed when it found that the concurrent findings of the Additional District Judge and the Guardian Judge were well founded.
2. In this petition the petitioner, who is the mother of the minor contends that the High Court as well as the subordinate Courts were wrong in holding that the welfare of the minor lay in awarding his custody to respondent No.1, who is his father.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we are not persuaded that any case for interference with the findings of the High Court and the subordinate Courts has been made out. However, respondent No.1 has made an offer that the minor may stay with the mother from Saturday to Wednesday and then spend the other two days of the week with his father; further, the minor should spend the first half of the summer vacation with the father. The expenses for bringing the child to the house of the father and then returning him to the house of the mother will be borne by the father. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we think this is a fair offer and in the interest of the minor. We would accordingly convert this petition into appeal and make an order in terms of this offer. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./K‑115/S Order accordingly.