ASIMA SAEED vs Syed SAEED HASSAN SHAH HUMAYOUN and others----
This matter concerns a custody and visitation dispute involving a minor child, Mughees, aged five years. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the visitation rights of the paternal grandfather, requiring the mother to travel approximately 400 kilometers from Lahore to Bahawalpur with the minor, imposed undue hardship on the petitioner. The Court held that while the grandfather possesses a legitimate right to meet the minor, this right must be balanced against the welfare and convenience of the mother and the child. Consequently, the Court modified the previous High Court order, ruling that the grandfather must travel to the location where the mother and child reside, rather than compelling the mother to travel to Bahawalpur. The Court further directed that visitation meetings be arranged within the jurisdiction of the local Senior Civil Judge or Guardian Judge at the mother's place of posting. The key principle laid down is that visitation rights must be exercised in a manner that avoids causing unreasonable financial burden, physical hardship, or inconvenience to the custodial parent and the minor.
- Can visitation rights of a grandparent be exercised in a manner that imposes undue hardship on the custodial parent?
- Is the court empowered to modify visitation arrangements to accommodate the custodial parent's professional posting?
- Does the right of a grandparent to meet a minor override the convenience and welfare of the minor and the custodial parent?
ORDER
' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- In this matter the hardships and problems being faced by the petitioner who is the mother of minor Mughees aged about 5 years is involved. No doubt the grand father of the minor has the right to meet minor Mughees but for achieving the object the petitioner cannot be put to hardship and difficulties by taking him from Lahore to Bahawalpur, about 400 kilo meters away which would not only entail heavy financial burden but also cause hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 31-7-2006 had suspended the operation of impugned order dated 27-3-2006 of Lahore High Court and observed that the petitioner would not go to Bahawalpur along-with the minor for meeting with his grand father but the grand father would come to Lahore for the purpose of meeting. In our opinion this order is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case but there is one problem. The petitioner who is in Government service as a Lecturer is likely to be transferred to a Station other than Lahore in which the grand father would be required to proceed to that station for meeting the minor. The order dated 31-7-2006 is, therefore, modified to the extent that the grand father would come to Lahore or any other place where the petitioner would be living on account of her posting. The meeting shall be arranged at Lahore or any other city in the court of Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge, as the case may be.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the petition is time barred and is not maintainable as it has been filed against a review order. This Court while taking note of the hardships and inconvenience to be faced by the petitioner in complying with the order of the High Court has modified the same vide order dated 31-7-2006, therefore, while modifying the said order such objections cannot be entertained.
3. This petition stands disposed of in terms of the above modification and observations.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Sadique Versus State 2025 PCrLJ 1518
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus State 2013 YLR 885