Offices Throughout Pakistan

Call 24 hours a day!


2017 CLC 1747


Ss. 12 , 25 & 47 —Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5, Sched. & S.14—Suit for custody of minors by father—Visitations rights of the father


Guardian Court granted visitation rights to father for meeting children twice a month–Father moved the Court again for handing over interim custody of children during school summer vacations

—Guardian Court partially accepted the application against which father preferred an appeal

—Appellate Court passed an order regarding interim custody to father adding a considerable period of summer, winter and spring vacations and also on occasions of Muharram, both Eids and birthdays of minors as well as father’s

—Mother objected both revised schedules passed by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court

—Order passed on application under mien S.12 of Guardian s and Wards Act, 1890—Extent—Jurisdiction of Family Court

—Scope— 2017 CLC 1747

Right of appeal

—Scope— 2017 CLC 1747

Petitioner/mother contended that earlier order of visitations rights of a father to meet twice a month passed under S.12 of Guardian s and Wards Act, 1890 was final, which is interim in nature, was neither reviewable nor appealable in terms of S.47 of Guardian s and Wards Act, 1890—

Father asserted that the Trial Court had ample powers to modify or review its earlier order in the interest of justice and provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 could not be read in isolation and combined reading of FamilyCourts Act, 1964 had made the decision of Family Court under Family Courts Act, 1964 appealable in terms of S.14 of the said Act


Provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 could not be read in isolation because the legislature, by design, had brought the disputes relating to the Guardianship, within the purview of First Sched. of S.5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, therefore, all the affairs relating to the Guardianship would be exclusively trialable by the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1964 because the statute which was later in time would prevail.

—In terms of S.14 of Family Courts Act, 1964 while excluding an interim order, a decree or decision given by the Family Court would be appealable–High Court observed that order passed by Family Court/Guardian Court under S.12 of the Guardian s and Wards Act, 1890 was appealable under S.14 of Family Courts Act, 1964—

Family Court had parental jurisdiction and there was no scope of such jurisdiction for any undue adherence to technicalities and Family Court being quasi-judicial forum could follow its own procedure which was not to be against the principles of fair trial—

No legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect having been noticed, the constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

WhatsApp Chat with us now