 |
| Visitation rights of father |
 |
| How to meet your child twice a month Guardian court |
Many people (husband)want to meet his child in court of law but court don't permission to them to do so.
Husband are always suffer from difficulties because the custody of children always granted to wife.
And husband pay the maintenance allowance (child support) but visitation rights also not good for husband and they can't meet with the child as much as their rights and per scheduled of supreme Court .
Visitation schedule --- Welfare of minor --- Scope --- While deciding a guardian petition , including chalking of a visitation schedule , it is the ' welfare of the minor ' which is of paramount consideration --
2023 CLC 2110
Visitation schedule --- Welfare of minor --- Scope --- While deciding a guardian petition , including chalking of a visitation schedule , it is the ' welfare of the minor ' which is of paramount consideration --- Limited hours of meeting within the Court premises is the policy generally adopted by the Courts which is certainly not an appropriate solution inasmuch as it only enable a minor to identify his relation with the non - custodial parent without developing any bonding due to the lack of proper interaction between the minors and such non - custodial parent because of non - conducive environment of the Court premises --- As a natural corollary , there is great chance that the minor will turn against such non custodial parent --- Thus , the Courts are to consider the impact that the proposed visitation schedule may have on the child --- Failure to protect the development of healthy and secure attachment of a minor with non - custodial parent can have long term negative effects on the development of the minor , hence , the basic consideration while chalking out the visitation schedule is to ensure that the minor will not turn against one parent because of inadequacy of time given to the non-custodial parent.
ملاقات کا شیڈول --- نابالغ کی فلاح و بہبود --- دائرہ کار --- سرپرست کی درخواست کا فیصلہ کرتے ہوئے، جس میں وزٹیشن شیڈول کی چاکنگ بھی شامل ہے، یہ 'نابالغ کی بہبود' ہے جس پر سب سے زیادہ غور کیا جاتا ہے --
2023 CLC 2110
ملاقات کا شیڈول --- نابالغ کی فلاح و بہبود --- دائرہ --- سرپرستی کی درخواست کا فیصلہ کرتے ہوئے، جس میں ملاقات کے شیڈول کو چاک کرنا بھی شامل ہے، یہ 'نابالغ کی فلاح و بہبود' ہے جس پر سب سے زیادہ غور کیا جاتا ہے --- ملاقات کے محدود گھنٹے عدالت کا احاطہ وہ پالیسی ہے جو عام طور پر عدالتوں کے ذریعہ اختیار کی جاتی ہے جو یقینی طور پر ایک مناسب حل نہیں ہے کیونکہ یہ صرف ایک نابالغ کو اس قابل بناتا ہے کہ وہ نابالغوں کے درمیان مناسب تعامل کی کمی کی وجہ سے بغیر کسی تعلق کو پیدا کیے غیر تحویل والے والدین کے ساتھ اپنے تعلق کی نشاندہی کر سکے۔ عدالت کے احاطے کے غیر سازگار ماحول کی وجہ سے اس طرح کے غیر زیر حراست والدین --- ایک فطری نتیجہ کے طور پر، اس بات کا بہت امکان ہے کہ نابالغ ایسے غیر حراستی والدین کے خلاف ہو جائے گا --- اس طرح، عدالتوں کو اس کے اثرات پر غور کرنا ہے مجوزہ ملاقات کا شیڈول بچے پر ہو سکتا ہے --- نابالغ کے غیر زیر حراست والدین کے ساتھ صحت مند اور محفوظ وابستگی کی نشوونما کے تحفظ میں ناکامی نابالغ کی نشوونما پر طویل مدتی منفی اثرات مرتب کر سکتی ہے، اس لیے چاکنگ کرتے وقت بنیادی خیال رکھنا ضروری ہے۔ ملاقات کا شیڈول اس بات کو یقینی بنانا ہے کہ نابالغ والدین کو وقت کی ناکافی ہونے کی وجہ سے ایک والدین کے خلاف نہیں ہو گا۔
The following case is on the topic of visitation rights
The short story of the following high court case is this,
- The mother file writ petition against the orders of district and session judge that, she can't take to the suckling baby twice in a month as the order of the family court and district and session court.
- The High court order, there is no illegality in the orders of both Lowers court, and dismiss the writ petition.
- These orders are very helpful for people who want to meet their suckling baby twice a month. We will help you to meet with your children.
- For more information call or Whatsapp (+92-324-4010279)
2018 M L D 448
[Lahore]
Before Jawad Hassan, J
Dr. SAMINA ANAYAT---Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others---Respondents
W.P. No.54757 of 2017, decided on 24th November, 2017.
Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)---
----S.12---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.14(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---
Interim custody of suckling minor---Review of visitation hours---Scope---Petitioner/mother
contended that both Courts below had failed to consider that it would be hard to bring the minor
of 1½ years of age to the court twice a month for meeting with the father---Respondent/father
contended that meetings with minor in tender age was necessary to develop affiliation with the
father---Validity---While passing the impugned order, the Guardian Court had exercised his
jurisdiction vested in it and nothing in the said order was contrary to law and beyond his
jurisdiction---Parties also confirmed that said order had been complied with and since then the
meetings were being conducted---Order passed by Guardian Court was interim in nature and
constitutional petition would not lie before the High Court---Section 14(3) of Family Courts Act,
1964 showed that no appeal or revision would lie against interim order passed by the Family
Court---Family Courts Act, 1964 had explicitly barred the remedy of appeal or revision against
such an order, therefore, in case a constitutional petition was entertained against such order, the
same would amount to circumventing the intention of the legislature and frustrating the express
provision of law---No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned order passed
by the Appellate Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Muhammad Anwar Khan v. Mst. Yasmin Zafar 1987 SCMR 2029; Ms. Quratulain
Aleem v. Muhammad Rehman Khan and another 2006 YLR 2604 and Mst. Noor Jehan alias
Tasleem Begum v. Muhammad Arshad and another 1986 CLC 442 ref.
Mrs. Alia Hina for Petitioner.
Mian Shakeel Ahmad for Respondent.
ORDER
JAWAD HASSAN, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in
question order dated 13.05.2017 and 14.06.2017 passed by learned Senior Civil Ju
2.
Arguments heard and record perused.
3.
From the perusal of record it reveals that the Petitioner is aggrieved of an order passed by
learned Civil Judge 1st Class(Guardian), whereby he vide order dated 29.10.2016 dismissing an
application filed by the Respondent No.3, under Section 12(2) of Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 (the "Act") for temporary custody of minor Rajab Adnan, ordered the Petitioner to produce
the minor in the Guardian Court on every second and fourth Saturday of a month for his meeting
with the Respondent No.3, so that the affiliation of minor towards the Respondent No.3 be
developed and minor may not become stranger to the Respondent No.3. Feeling aggrieved by the
said order, the Petitioner moved application before the Guardian Judge, Sialkot agitating therein
that she is not in position to produce the minor in the court twice in a month. The said application
of the Petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2017. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved of
the same filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot which was dismissed
vide order dated 14.06.2017.
4.
It has been argued by the counsel for the Petitioner that both the courts below while
passing the impugned orders have failed to take into consideration that the minor is only 1-1/2
year suckling baby and premature baby born at 7th month and it is difficult for the Petitioner to
spend continuously six hours in the court premises twice in a month and dismissed the
application of the Petitioner illogically for review of visitation hours. On the other hand, counsel
for the Respondents has supported the impugned orders by contending that the impugned orders
are interlocutory in nature and writ petition against such orders is not maintainable.
5.
It has been observed that while passing the impugned order the learned Guardian Judge,
has exercised his jurisdiction vested in him and nothing in the said order is contrary to law and
beyond his jurisdiction. Both the counsel stated that the order dated 13.05.2017 has been
complied with and since then the meetings are conducted. The order passed by learned Guardian
Judge is interim in nature and no constitutional petition would lie before the High Court. Perusal
of section 14(3) of West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, shows that no appeal or revision shall
lie against an interim order passed by a Family Court. The Act has explicitly barred the remedy
of appeal or revision against such an order, therefore, in case a constitutional petition is
entertained against such an order, it will amount to circumvent the intention of the legislation and
to frustrate the express provision of law. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Muhammad
Anwar Khan v. Mst. Yasmin Zafar (1987 SCMR 2029), Ms. Quratulain Aleem v. Muhammad
Rehman Khan and another (2006 YLR 2604) and Mst. Noor Jehan alias Tasleem Begum v.
Muhammad Arshad and another (1986 CLC 442). Since the impugned order is an interlocutory
order and against such an order constitution petition cannot be filed, therefore, the petition before
this Court is not maintainable. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly observed in the
appeal that appeal or revision against interlocutory matters is not maintainable.
6.
Writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
MQ/S-86/L
Petition dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment