Tariq Afzal Chaudhry vs Mst. Shamim Yasim And Another
This matter arises from a petition challenging an interim order passed by the Guardian Judge under Section 12 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890, regarding the interim custody of minors during the pendency of a main guardianship petition. The core legal question concerned the interim custody arrangement and the expeditious disposal of the underlying guardianship proceedings. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner agreed not to press for the suspension of the impugned interim orders provided the Trial Court was directed to decide the main petition within a specified timeframe, to which the respondent's counsel readily consented. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and disposed of it with a positive direction to the Trial Court to conclude and decide the main guardianship petition within two months. The key principle laid down is that where parties consent to an expedited trial of the main cause, appellate courts may dispose of interim custody challenges by directing the expeditious conclusion of the primary proceedings.
- Whether an interim custody order passed under the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 can be expedited by directing the Trial Court to decide the main petition within a specified timeframe?
- Can a petition against an interim custody order be disposed of on the consent of the parties for an early decision of the main guardianship case?
- Section 12, Guardians & Wards Act 1890
JUDGMENT MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- this petition has arisen from an interim order passed by the Guardian Judge under section 12 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890, in respect of interim custody of the minors during the pendency of the guardianship petition in the said Courts.
2. When inquired, we have been informed that the main petition is fixed for recording of evidence on 30.3.2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would be satisfied if the Trial Court is directed to decide the main petition within two months from 30.3.2000 i.e. On or before 21.5.2000 and would nor press for the grant of the relief at present for the suspension of the impugned interim orders in this petitions.
Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if such a direction is made as he is also interested that the main case is decided as early as possible and the respondent would produce evidence within the time fixed by the Court.
4. In view of the above, this petition is converted into appeal and disposed of with the direction that the Trial Court shall decide the main petition which is fixed on 30.3.2000 for recording of evidence within two months i.e., up to 31.5.2000 positively and compliance of this order shall be reported to the Assistant Registrar of this Court.