2015 PLP 731 (SCMR)
SHAUKAT MASIH — Petitioner Versus Mst. FARHAT PARKASH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 731 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Qazi Faez Isa, JJ |
| Parties | SHAUKAT MASIH — Petitioner Versus Mst. FARHAT PARKASH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 731 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 731 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Qazi Faez Isa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 731 (SCMR) (SHAUKAT MASIH — Petitioner Versus Mst. FARHAT PARKASH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Liaqat Ali Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Sardar Badar Munir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1 and Minor Minahil Nadeem present in person.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 18-8-2014 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1614-H of 2014)
S. 491
Guardians and Wards Act (VII of 1890), Ss. 7 & 10
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, R. 13
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 187(1)
Guardianship certificate
Power of Supreme Court to issue such directions, orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in a case involving custody of minor
Scope
Paternal grandfather of the minor obtained guardianship certificate through ex parte proceedings without disclosing to the court that mother of minor was still alive
Mother of minor, who was unaware of the guardianship certificate, filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court claiming custody of the minor
Habeas corpus petition was allowed by the High Court despite the existence of guardianship certificate in favour of paternal grandfather on the ground that said certificate had not been obtained in a bona fide manner and, thus, by ignoring the guardianship certificate the High Court ordered transfer of the custody of the minor from the paternal grandfather to the mother
Mother of minor had not filed any appeal against the order passed by the Guardian Judge nor had any application so far been filed by her before the Guardian Judge seeking recalling of the ex parte order and reconsideration of the matter on its merits
By way of order passed by the High Court a minor had been given in the custody of her real mother and even if there were some questions regarding proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in the matter still the Supreme Court would not like the minor to be made a ball of ping pong and shuttle her custody during the legal battles being fought by those interested in her custody
Under Art. 187(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court could issue such directions, orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it
Supreme Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Art. 187(1) of the Constitution in the present case set aside the order passed by the Guardian Judge, and cancelled the Guardianship certificate and directed the Guardian Judge to consider the application for guardianship certificate submitted by the paternal grandfather as a pending application, and to hear all the parties concerned, including the mother of the minor, and then decide the matter of custody afresh after attending to all the jurisdictional, legal and factual issues relevant to the controversy raised by the parties
Supreme Court further directed that during the interregnum the custody of the minor shall remain with the mother and the Guardian Judge shall attend to the request, if any, made regarding visitation rights
Petition was disposed of accordingly. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab and Fiaz Ahmed, Inspector, Police Station Farooq Town, Sahiwal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
The matter in issue pertains to the custody of a minor namely Minahil Nadeem aged about 6/7 years. The present petitioner happens to be the paternal grandfather of the said minor whereas respondent No.1 is the real mother of that minor. We have been informed that the father of the said minor has already expired. On 24-7-2014 the present petitioner had obtained a Guardianship Certificate from the learned Guardian Judge, Shahkot, District Nankana Sahib and through that Certificate guardianship of the person and property of the above mentioned minor had been given to the petitioner. It appears that at the time of obtaining the Guardianship Certificate the petitioner had failed to disclose that the minor's mother was still alive and the said Guardianship Certificate had been obtained by the petitioner through ex parte proceedings. Being ignorant of issuance of any Guardianship Certificate in favour of the petitioner a petition in the nature of habeas corpus had been filed by respondent No. 1 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore under section 491, Cr.P.C. claiming custody of the above mentioned minor on account of respondent No. 1 being the real mother of that minor. On 18-8-2014 the said habeas corpus petition was allowed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore upon acceptance of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1614-H of 2014 and consequently the custody of the minor was delivered from the petitioner to respondent No.
1. The said order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court through the present petition.
2. The petitioner, respondent No. 1 and the relevant minor are in attendance before the Court and we have heard the parties as well as their learned counsel at some length.
3. The pivotal issue arising before this Court through the present petition is that at the time of passage of the impugned order by the Lahore High Court, Lahore a Guardianship Certificate issued in favour of the present petitioner was in existence but despite the said Guardianship Certificate holding the field at the relevant time the learned Judge-in-Chamber had proceeded to hold the same to be a document not obtained in a bona fide manner and, thus, by ignoring the said Guardianship Certificate the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had proceeded to decide the habeas corpus petition and had ordered transfer of the custody of the minor from the petitioner to respondent No.
1. It has been argued before us that at the time of filing of an application seeking his appointment as the guardian of the minor the petitioner had not disclosed the critical fact regarding the mother of the minor being alive and had, thus, obtained an ex parte order regarding issuance of a Guardianship Certificate whereas the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore was fully aware of existence of such a Guardianship Certificate but she had proceeded to ignore the same and to bring about a result contrary to the result achieved through the Guardianship Certificate. We have been informed that so far respondent No. 1 has not filed any appeal against the relevant order passed by the learned Guardian Judge nor any application has so far been filed before the learned Guardian Judge seeking recall of the ex parte order and reconsideration of the matter on its merits. Be that as it may we find that through the impugned order passed by the High Court a minor girl has been given in the custody of her real mother and even if there are some questions regarding proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in the matter still we would not like the little girl to be made a ball of ping pong and shuttle her custody during the legal battles being fought by those interested in her custody. Faced with this unfortunate situation we have decided to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Article 187(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which allows this Court to issue such directions, orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. Invoking the said jurisdiction of this Court we set aside the order passed by the learned Guardian Judge, Shahkot, District Nankana Sahib on 24-7-2014 and cancel the Guardianship Certificate of the said date and direct the learned Guardian Judge to consider the application submitted before him by the present petitioner regarding custody of the relevant minor as a pending application, to hear all the parties concerned, including the mother of the minor, and then to decide the matter of custody of the above mentioned minor afresh after attending to all the jurisdictional, legal and factual issues relevant to the controversy raised by the parties. During the interregnum the custody of the minor shall remain with her mother and the learned Guardian Judge shall attend to the request, if any, made regarding visitation rights. The petitioner and respondent No.1 are directed to appear before the learned Guardian Judge, Shahkot, District Nankana Sahib on 9-3-2015 along with the minor namely Minahil Nadeem. This petition is disposed of in these terms. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Guardian Judge, Shahkot, District Nankana Sahib for his information and compliance. MWA/S-1/SC Order accordingly.