Mst. KANEEZ SUGHRA vs Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAH And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from proceedings initiated by respondent father for the custody of his minor son. The Guardian Judge allowed the application, holding that the minor's welfare lay with the father, which concurrent finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the High Court in a writ petition. The core legal question concerned the determination of the welfare of the minor regarding custody as between the mother and the father. The Supreme Court held that no case for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts had been made out. Based on a fair offer made by the respondent father regarding visitation and sharing custody during the week and vacations, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and disposed of it in terms of the agreed custody arrangement. The key principle laid down is that custody matters are decided primarily on the basis of the welfare of the minor, and appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless properly warranted.
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the custody of a minor can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- How is the welfare of the minor determined in custody disputes between parents?
- Can custody and visitation arrangements be settled on the basis of an offer made by a party during appeal?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 for the custody of his minor son aged about 9 years now. The learned Guardian Judge allowed his application after holding that it was in the welfare of the minor that his custody should be with his father. This finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal. The petitioner's writ petition in the High Court failed when it found that the concurrent findings of the Additional District Judge and the Guardian Judge were well founded.
2. In this petition the petitioner, who is the mother of the minor contends that the High Court as well as the subordinate Courts were wrong in holding that the welfare of the minor lay in awarding his custody to respondent No.1, who is his father.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we are not persuaded that any case for interference with the findings of the High Court and the subordinate Courts has been made out. However, respondent No.1 has made an offer that the minor may stay with the mother from Saturday to Wednesday and then spend the other two days of the week with his father; further, the minor should spend the first half of the summer vacation with the father. The expenses for bringing the child to the house of the father and then returning him to the house of the mother will be borne by the father. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we think this is a fair offer and in the interest of the minor. We would accordingly convert this petition into appeal and make an order in terms of this offer. There will be no order as to costs.
Cited by 1 case
- RUKHSANA MALIK Versus ABDUL AZIZ 2004 PLD 801