Mst. KANEEZ BIBI vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an order of the District Judge regarding the custody of a minor. The petitioner, the mother of the minor, sought to restore the order of the Guardian Judge, which had originally granted her custody, arguing that her continued care and the minor's welfare necessitated her retaining custody. The Supreme Court reviewed the proceedings and noted that the High Court had thoroughly considered the relevant facts, finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the District Judge. The core legal question was whether the High Court's dismissal of the constitutional petition was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was in accordance with the law and declined to interfere, affirming that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody disputes. As the petitioner failed to raise any substantial legal point warranting interference, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in child custody litigation?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that correctly evaluates the findings of a District Judge in a custody matter?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 31-1-1989. The High Court by means of the impugned judgment dismissed the Constitution petition where by the petitioner had prayed that the order of the District Judge dated 22-7-1984 be set aside and that of the Guardian Judge dated 21-5-1983 restored.
2. ' The Guardian Judge, Jhang, gave custody of the minor to the petitioner. Muhammad Bakhsh, father of the minor, filed appeal. The District Judge allowed that. The petitioner invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the High Court. Hcr petition was dismissed. Hence this petition.
3. ' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He could not urge any legal point but was all along submitting that the petitioner, mother of the minor, was the best suitable person for the custody of the child.
4. ' Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had been looking after the minor. She had been giving him education. Welfare of the minor which is always of paramount consideration in such like litigation demands that he should remain in the custody of the mother.
5. The High Court took all the relevant facts into consideration and observed, The findings recorded by the learned District Judge in this case even if considered in the light of the evidence of the petitioner as discussed above do not suffer from any misreading or non-reading".
6. ' Judgment of the High Court being in accordance with law calls for no interference. Not a fit case for leave to appeal.
7. ' Dismissed.