Pakistan Case Law
1990 SCMR 852

Mst. TAHIRA vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 SCMR 852
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,77-R of 1990
Date1990-02-18
Judge(s)Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian
Authored byAjmal Mian
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining concurrent findings of lower courts that the respondent mother, being the real mother of the minor girl, possessed a vested right of 'hizanat'. The core legal questions involve whether section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 applies when custody of a minor was obtained by an agreement, and whether the non-joinder of the paternal-grandmother renders the custody application incompetent. The Supreme Court held that section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is attracted where custody is denied to a mother based on a disputed agreement, and that a real mother possessing no disqualifications holds a superior vested right of 'hizanat' over a paternal-grandmother. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 apply to a case where custody of a minor was obtained on the basis of an agreement?
  • Does a real mother have a superior vested right of hizanat over a paternal-grandmother when she is otherwise qualified?
  • Does the failure to implead a paternal-grandmother render a custody application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 incompetent?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act 1890
guardians and wardscustody of minorhizanatvested right of motherleave to appeal

ORDER

AJMAL MIAN, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 23-1-1990 passed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,278 of 1988 dismissing the same and maintaining the concurrent findings of the two Courts below that respondent No,3 being the real mother of the minor girl had a vested right of 'hizanae'. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above judgment has filed the present petition for leave.

2. Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was not attracted to the instant case as the custody of the minor was obtained by the petitioner 'a phuphi' on the basis of an agreement dated 2-8-1980. His further submission was that since paternal-grandmother was not impleaded as a party to the application under section 25 of the Act, the application was not competent.

3. It is an admitted position that at the time when Respondent No,3 filed the aforesaid application, the age of the girl was 1-1/2 years. It is also an admitted position that Respondent No,3 was divorced immediately after getting the above document executed. It is also an admitted position that Respondent No,3's husband got married second time whereas Respondent No,3 has not married second time after divorce. Nothing against Respondent No,3 was brought on record which would disentitle her to her right of `hizanar. In this view of the matter, denial of the minor girl's custody to a mother on the basis of the alleged agreement, the legality of which was under challenge before the Courts below, would attract section 25 of the Act,

4. The second contention has also no force as if paternal-grandmother was interested in the custody, she would have come forward to become a party to the application. If there is a tie between a real mother against whom there is nothing which can disqualify her from claiming custody of her minor daughter and a paternal-grandmother, the former has a vested right of 'hizanat'. In this view of the matter the paternal-grandmother obviously because of the above legal position had not come forward to become a party to the application. The petition has no force.

Leave is accordingly refused.

Cited by 8 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.