Case law on Custody process how court decide custody case.
کیس کی مرکزی کہانی ڈاکٹر محمد آصف اور جواب دہندہ نمبر 3 کے درمیان تحویل کے تنازعہ کے گرد گھومتی ہے، جو نابالغ بچوں محمد حمزہ اور طلحہ آصف کی والدہ ہیں۔ جواب دہندہ نمبر 3 نے بچوں کی تحویل کے لیے درخواست دائر کی جس کا ڈاکٹر آصف نے مقابلہ کیا۔ عدالت نے فریقین کی طرف سے پیش کیے گئے دلائل اور شواہد پر غور کیا، جس کے نتیجے میں جواب دہندہ نمبر(ماں3) کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا گیا، اس کی نابالغوں کی تحویل میں دیا گیا اور ڈاکٹر آصف کے لیے ملاقات کے شیڈول کا خاکہ پیش کیا۔ یہ ایک قانونی معاملہ ہے جس میں خاندانی حرکیات اور بچوں کی فلاح و بہبود شامل ہے۔
میسرز وسیم سرور خان اور مقداد
حسن خان، وکیل مدعا علیہ کے ساتھ
نمبر 3۔
راحیل کامران جے:- درخواست گزار نے درخواست کی ہے۔
کے آئین کے آرٹیکل 199 کے تحت اس عدالت کا دائرہ اختیار
اسلامی جمہوریہ پاکستان، 1973 ('آئین') کو چیلنج کرنے کے لیے
حکم مورخہ 14.07.2023 سینئر سول جج (فیملی) نے منظور کیا
ڈویژن) لیہ کی حد تک میٹنگ کا شیڈول تیار کر لیا گیا۔
ماں کے حق میں اور 25.04.2024 کا فیصلہ
ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج، لیہ نے منظور کیا جس کے تحت اپیل کی گئی۔
ماں کو ترجیح دی گئی اور اس کے نتیجے میں اسے قبول کر لیا گیا۔
ایک خاکہ پیش کرتے ہوئے نابالغوں کی تحویل کے لیے درخواست کی اجازت دی گئی۔
درخواست گزار کے لیے ملاقات کا شیڈول۔
2.
اس درخواست کو جنم دینے والے حقائق یہ ہیں کہ مدعا علیہ نمبر 3
ماں ہونے کے ناطے نابالغوں کی تحویل کے لیے درخواست دائر کردی
محمد حمزہ اور طلحہ آصف کی عمریں تقریباً پانچ سال اور چار سال ہیں۔
سال بالترتیب درخواست گزار کے خلاف جس نے اسی کی طرف سے مقابلہ کیا تھا۔
ڈبلیو پی 2024 کا نمبر 5637
تحریری جواب داخل کرکے۔ فریقین کی مختلف درخواستوں میں سے، دو
معاملات طے کیے گئے اور فریقین کے شواہد ریکارڈ کیے گئے۔ دی
سینئر سول جج (فیملی ڈویژن)، لیہ نے غور کے بعد
ثبوت، 14.07.2023 کے حکم نامے کے ذریعے ماں کی درخواست کو خارج کر دیا۔
تاہم ماں نے اس کی ملاقات کا شیڈول بنایا
نابالغوں کے ساتھ. غمزدہ ہو کر دونوں فریقوں نے الگ الگ رہنے کو ترجیح دی۔
اپیل اور ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج، لیہ نے فیصلہ سنا دیا۔
مورخہ 25.04.2024 نے ماں کی اپیل منظور کر لی جبکہ
جبکہ نابالغوں کی تحویل کے لیے اس کی درخواست کی اجازت دینا درخواست گزار باپ کی اپیل خارج کر دی گئی، تاہم میٹنگ کا شیڈول تھا۔
اس کے حق میں نکلا۔
3۔
باپ کے وکیل نے استدلال کیا ہے کہ ان کا دعویٰ کیا گیا ہے۔
اپیل کورٹ کا فیصلہ قانون اور حقائق کے منافی ہے۔
کیس کے ساتھ ساتھ شہادت کو غلط پڑھنے اور نہ پڑھنے کا شکار ہیں۔
ثبوت. اس کا کہنا ہے کہ ماں نے جرح کے دوران اعتراف کیا کہ حمزہ کی پیدائش کے چند دن بعد (اس کا پہلا)
بچہ) وہ کالج گئی تھی اور اس نے اسے دودھ نہیں پلایا تھا، اس لیے ایسا ہے۔
اس سے ظاہر ہوتا ہے کہ وہ اپنے بچے کی پرورش میں غافل تھی۔
بلکہ اس نے اپنے کیریئر کو اپنے بچے کی فلاح و بہبود پر ترجیح دی۔ اس نے مزید
جواب دہندہ نمبر 3 ایک کام کرنے والی خاتون ہے جو اکیلی رہتی ہے۔
لہٰذا لاہور میں نابالغوں کی دیکھ بھال کرنے والا کوئی نہیں ہوگا۔
جبکہ درخواست گزار اپنی ماں، بہن اور دوسری بیوی کے ساتھ رہتا ہے۔
جو نابالغوں کی مناسب دیکھ بھال کر سکے۔ ان کے مطابق، معمولی
محمد حمزہ اپنی دینی اور دنیاوی صحیح طریقے سے حاصل کر رہے ہیں۔
تعلیم. انہوں نے مزید کہا کہ درخواست گزار کو باپ ہونے کی ترجیح حاصل ہے۔
خاص طور پر سات سال کی عمر کے مرد بچوں کی تحویل کا حق
جب وہ اس کے ساتھ زیادہ قریب اور آرام دہ ہوں اور یہاں تک کہ وہ بھی
جواب دہندہ نمبر 3 کو پہچاننے سے انکار کر دیا ہے جو جان بوجھ کر چھوڑ گیا تھا۔
وہ اپنی کم عمری میں۔ ان کے بقول درخواست گزار
خود ایک چائلڈ سپیشلسٹ ڈاکٹر ھی اور بیمار بچوں کی مناسب دیکھ بھال کر رہا ہے۔
اپنی تلاش ہیومن کی جاری کردہ رپورٹ کے مطابق طلحہ آصف ترقیاتی مرکز بتدریج بہتر ہو رہا ہے۔ وہ آخر کار بحث کرتا ہے۔
ڈبلیو پی 2024 کا نمبر 5637
کہ نابالغوں کی فلاح و بہبود ان کے والد کے ساتھ ہے اور اچانک تبدیلی
ان کی حراست ان کے جسمانی اور ذہنی طور پر بری طرح متاثر ہو سکتی ہے۔
ترقی، لہذا، اپیل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو مسترد کیا جاۓ
قانون میں غیر پائیدار.
4.
اس کے برعکس، ماں کے وکیل
اپیل کورٹ کی طرف سے منظور شدہ فیصلے کی حمایت کرتے ہوئے،
کا دعویٰ ہے کہ ماں نے نابالغ محمد حمزہ کو چھوڑ دیا تھا۔
اس کی پیدائش کے چند دن بعد مجبوری حالات کی وجہ سے وہ
تعلیم ابھی ادھوری تھی کیونکہ وہ فائنل ایئر کی طالبہ تھی۔
تاہم، ایم بی بی ایس کو مستقل طور پر بہانے کے طور پر استعمال نہیں کیا جا سکتا
اسے نابالغوں کی تحویل حاصل کرنے کے حق سے محروم کرنا۔ وہ برقرار رکھتا ہے۔
کہ ماں کی جانب سے تلاش میں کوئی تاخیر نہیں ہوئی۔
نابالغوں کی تحویل میں کیونکہ اس کی ستمبر 2019 میں طلاق ہوگئی تھی اور وہ
پہلی بار گارڈین کورٹ ڈیرہ غازی خان سے رجوع کیا۔
اس مقصد کے لیے 21.11.2020 کو۔ انہوں نے مزید کہا کہ۔
بلاخر ھائیکورٹ نے کسٹڈی ماں کو دے دی اور ایپلٹ کورٹ کا فیصلہ برقرار رکھا۔
The main story of the case revolves around a custody dispute between Dr. Muhammad Asif and respondent No.3, who is the mother of the minors, Muhammad Hamza and Talah Asif. Respondent No.3 filed an application seeking custody of the children, which Dr. Asif contested. The court considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, leading to a decision in favor of respondent No.3, granting her custody of the minors and outlining a visitation schedule for Dr. Asif. It's a legal matter that involves family dynamics and the welfare of the children.
Stereo. H C J D A 38.
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
MULTAN BENCH MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P. No.5637 of 2024
Dr. Muhammad Asif
Versus
ADJ Layyah, etc.
J U D G M E N T
Date of Hearing
15.05.2024
For the petitioner
Malik Sajjad Haider Maitla and Tahir
Mehmood, Advocates with the petitioner and
both minors.
For Respondent
No.3
M/s Waseem Sarwar Khan and Miqdad
Hassan Khan, Advocates with respondent
No.3.
Raheel Kamran J:- The petitioner has invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (‘Constitution’) to challenge the
order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge (Family
Division), Layyah to the extent of meeting schedule chalked out in
favour of respondent No.3 and the judgment dated 25.04.2024
passed by the Additional District Judge, Layyah whereby appeal
preferred by respondent No.3 was accepted and consequently, her
application for the custody of minors was allowed while outlining a
visitation schedule for the petitioner.
2.
The facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.3
being mother filed an application for the custody of minors
Muhammad Hamza and Talah Asif aged about five years and four
years respectively against the petitioner who contested by the same
W.P. No.5637 of 2024
by filing written reply. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, two
issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded. The
Senior Civil Judge (Family Division), Layyah after consideration of
the evidence, vide order dated 14.07.2023 dismissed the application
of respondent No.3, however, formed a schedule for her meeting
with the minors. Feeling aggrieved, both sides preferred separate
appeals and the Additional District Judge, Layyah vide judgment
dated 25.04.2024 accepted the appeal of respondent No.3 while
allowing her application for the custody of minors whereas
dismissed appeal of the petitioner, however, visitation schedule was
chalked out in his favour.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned
judgment passed by the Appellate Court is against the law and facts
of the case as well as suffer from misreading and non-reading of
evidence. He maintains that respondent No.3, during crossexamination, admitted that after few days of birth of Hamza (her first
child) she had gone to college and had not breastfed him, hence, it is
manifest that she was negligent towards upbringing of her child
rather she preferred her career over welfare of her child. He further
contends that respondent No.3 is a working lady who lives alone in
Lahore, therefore, there will be no one there to look after the minors
whereas the petitioner lives with his mother, sister and second wife
who can properly look after the minors. According to him, minor
Muhammad Hamza is properly getting his religious and worldly
education. He adds that the petitioner being father has preferential
right of custody of male children aged about seven years especially
when they are more close and comfortable with him and even they
have refused to recognize respondent No.3 who had willfully left
them in their tender ages. According to him, the petitioner being
himself a Child Specialist is properly taking care of the sick minor
Talha Asif who as per report issued by Apni Talash Human
Development Centre is gradually improving. He finally contends
W.P. No.5637 of 2024
that welfare of the minors lies with their father and sudden change in
their custody might adversely affect their physical and mental
growth, therefore, impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is
unsustainable in law.
4.
Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.3 besides
supporting the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court,
contends that respondent No.3 had left the minor Muhammad Hamza
after few days of his birth due to compelling circumstances that her
education was still incomplete as she was student of the final year of
MBBS, however, that could not be used as an excuse to permanently
deprive her of the right to seek custody of the minors. He maintains
that there was no delay on the part of respondent No.3 in seeking
custody of minors as she was divorced in September, 2019 and she
for the first time approached the Guardian Court, Dera Ghazi Khan
on 21.11.2020 for that purpose. He further contends that respondent
No.3 has been continuously making efforts to meet the minors but
the petitioner created every possible hurdle in her way on one pretext
or the other and she has been purposely kept away from meeting the
minors. According to him, the minors have been brainwashed by the
petitioner against their real mother (respondent No.3) and that is why
the minor Muhammad Hamza has refused to recognize her. He adds
that respondent No.3 is living in Lahore and can provide better
treatment to minor Talha Asif as better facilities are available there.
According to him, the petitioner has contracted second marriage and
has one daughter out of the said wedlock, therefore, it is not expected
from a stepmother to give such love, affection and attention as the
real mother can. He further adds that respondent No.3 can properly
take care of the minors at Lahore as she would admit the elder minor
in school and would take the younger one to the office with her.
5.
Heard. Record perused.
6.
Bare reading of section 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act,
1890 reflects that welfare of the minor is the guiding factor in
W.P. No.5637 of 2024
deciding the matter of custody, of course, while giving due
consideration to the age, gender and religion of the minor and
character and capacity of the proposed guardian. The case in hands
involves custody of two male children namely Muhammad Hamza
and Talha Asif aged about seven years and six years respectively, as
mentioned in the custody petition. As regards Talha Asif, the
younger child, he is suffering from psychological disorder and as per
cross-examination of petitioner (DW-1), he is receiving training in
Apni Talash Training Centre. There is nothing available on record
in the evidence that minor Talha Asif was born with such
psychological disorder, therefore, it must have developed with the
passage of time during his custody with the petitioner. Although
petitioner is also a Child Specialist and has admitted in his crossexamination that the children with normal mental health are getting
education in Apni Talash Training Centre and has denied the
suggestion that minor Talha is suffering from Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Such training, as admitted by the
petitioner, includes speech and psychological training. Without
commenting on exact nature of the disorder that minor Talha may be
suffering from, it is noticed by this Court that there exists one which
is manifest from his behavior in the Court. The petitioner has further
admitted in the cross-examination that he performs duty in DHQ
Layyah and also carries on private practice in the evening.
Therefore, the petitioner would not have much time to spend with his
children who must have been brought up by their grandmother and
aunt whereas respondent No.3 in her cross-examination, in response
to a question on how will she take care of the minors in case their
custody is handed over to her since she is also a working woman, she
stated that she would admit the elder son in school and take the
younger son along with her to school. Moreover, respondent No.3
(mother) is living in Lahore which, being a Metropolitan City and
capital of the province has better facilities as compared to Layyah
and minor Talha Asif can have better treatment at Lahore. In these
W.P. No.5637 of 2024
circumstances, this Court is of the view that minor Talha Asif needs
more attention and care which can definitely be provided by his real
mother as there is no substitute of the natural love, affection and care
of the mother who is admittedly qualified as doctor.
7.
So far as the elder minor Muhammad Hamza is concerned,
although he is getting education in the school at Layyah and he has
also refused to recognize respondent No.3 being his mother yet
paramount consideration in custody cases is welfare of the minor and
the other facts are subordinate to the same. It has been contended
that respondent No.3 (PW-1) admitted during cross-examination that
she had returned to college after 40 days of the birth of minor
Muhammad Hamza and that she could not have breastfed the minors
for longer period. The findings of the Appellate in response to the
said assertion recorded in paragraph Nos.10 & 11 of the impugned
judgment are quite justified and unexceptionable which are
reproduced hereunder: -
“10…….. However, to my observation, the said finding of the
learned trial court is not based on well appreciated evidence of
the parties as it is evident from the pleadings as well as evidence
of both the parties that the appellant married with Dr. Muhammad
Asif respondent on 25.01.2015, when she was student of MBBS 2
nd
year (as mentioned by the respondent Dr. Muhammad Asif in the
written reply of the application of appellant for custody of minors
in the court of learned Guardian Court Dera Ghazi Khan on
02.02.2021). However in cross-examination, the appellant has
stated that her “Rukhsati” did not take place at the time of her
“Niakh” and when she accompanied the respondent for
matrimonial relationship, she was in fourth year of MBBS. She
has further stated that she failed in one subject subsequently again
she failed in final exams in one subject. She has stated that her
elder son Muhammad Hamza was born on 07.05.2017 at Dera
Ghazi Khan (the residence of parents of the appellant) while
Talha Asif Ali was born on 09.08.2018. She had further stated
that her degree was completed after the birth of Talha Asif alias
Ali who too was born at Dera Ghazi Khan. She had further stated
that she had done her house job in DHQ Hospital Dera Ghazi
Khan in 2019 and at that time, the minors were with her.
However, their (spouses) separation took place on 20.10.2019.
11.
The above mentioned narration of the appellant clearly
indicates that Dr. Muhammad Asif respondent and his family was
well aware at the time of marriage as well as “Rukhsati” of Dr.
W.P. No.5637 of 2024
Sana Sattar appellant that she was still student of MBBS and it
was not expressly settled down by the parties that she would
discontinue her education (as nothing contrary available on the
file). The appellant has not been suggested so, in her crossexamination, therefore, the production of the babies was joint
considered decision of the spouses and Dr. Muhammad Asif being
medical man should be knowing that how much time and
consideration is required being medical student to complete her
degree if he had opted to have birth during the education of the
appellant. He was well aware of the fact that she would not be
able to take personal care of the born child as normally in our
society house wife, mother dedicates her life to the born child. If
the appellant had left the minor after 40 days of the birth, it was
not, due to least love care but due to the compelling circumstances
i.e. incomplete education of the appellant……...”
8.
The petitioner is father of the minors who is their natural guardian
as well. However, law maintains a distinction between custody and
guardianship and respective rights and obligations in that regard
under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Custody under the Act
involves a right to upbringing of a minor. On the other hand,
guardianship entails the concept of taking care of the minor even
in situations when the guardian does not have domain over the
corpus of the child. A father is considered to be a natural guardian
of a minor, since even after separation with the mother, and even
when the mother has been granted custody of a minor, he is
obligated to provide financial assistance to the minor. The liability to
maintain the minor is not only religious and moral but legal. The
right of custody of minor is subordinate to the fundamental principle
i.e. welfare of the minor. Maintaining the children is the duty of
father which cannot be a decisive factor in custody of the minors. In
support of above proposition, reliance is placed on judgments in the
cases of Mst. Feroze Begum v. Lt-Col. Muhammad Hussain (1983
SCMR 606), Munawar Bibi v. Muhammad Amin (1995 SCMR
1206), Mst. Razia Bibi vs. Riaz Ahmad and another (2004 SCMR
821), Mst. Atia Waris vs. Sultan Ahmed Khan (PLD 1959 Lahore
205), Sultana Begum vs. Mir Afzal and others (PLD 1988 Karachi
252), Mst. Kaneez Akhtar vs. Abdul Qadoos and 2 others (2005
MLD 828), Nazan Bibi vs. Additional District Judge, Jhang and
W.P. No.5637 of 2024
others (2009 YLR 991), Habib-ur-Rehman vs. Hina Saeed (2010
MLD 544), Masroor Hussain vs. Additional District Judge,
Islamabad (2011 CLC 851), Bushra Asghar vs. Dr. Rehmat Ali and
3 others (2012 MLD 1755) and Ms. Shazia Akbar Ghalzai and
another vs. Additional District Judge, Islamabad (East) and 2 others
(2021 MLD 817).
9.
Admittedly, the petitioner has contracted second marriage and
has one daughter by the second wife as admitted by him in the crossexamination. Unless established otherwise through cogent and
reliable evidence, it cannot be presumed that a stepmother could be
substitute for the real mother in the matter of upbringing of the
minor. She is stranger to the minors born from respondent No.3. In
the presence of her own child and presumably will have more
children in future, she may have little care for the step-children,
however, there may be exceptions to that which require proof which
is not available in this case. On the other hand, respondent No.3 has
not contracted second marriage and even she has stated in her
examination in chief that she has no intention to do so.
10. The plea of the the petitioner that minor Muhammad Hamza
has been residing with him since his birth and is emotionally
attached with him since respondent No.3 left him at very tender age
to complete her education and did not claim his custody for quite
some time, is not a valid and sufficient consideration to deprive
respondent No.3 of her entitlement to custody permanently. In this
day and age, when pursuit of education and career does not attract
any disqualification for a father to seek custody of minor, how a
mother can be discriminated on that basis. Working mothers are a
reality of the day and their participation in the professional life is
essential for the progress of societies. It makes roles of women even
harder, which needs to be recognized and appreciated rather than
discouraged or made more onerous by attributing disqualifications
vis-à-vis custody of the minors. This does not mean that the Courts
W.P. No.5637 of 2024
should become insensitive to the needs of the minors merely because
their mother is a working woman. Welfare of the minor remains
primary consideration for determining his or her custody. It is only
recognition and adjustment of expectation from a working mother in
comparison to a stay-at-home mother so that the former is not
unreasonably put to any disadvantage.
11. The conduct of the petitioner in keeping her away from the
minor is quite evident from the record which reflects that initially,
respondent No.3 filed an application for custody of minors before the
Guardian Court, Dera Ghazi Khan on 21.11.2020 wherein the
petitioner took the plea of lack of jurisdiction as the minors were
residing in Layyah. The said application of respondent No.3 was
returned to her to be presented to the court of competent jurisdiction.
Thereafter, respondent No.3 having remained unsuccessful before
the Appellate Court and this Court, filed custody petition before the
Guardian Court, Layyah, however, the petitioner in order to defeat
her legal right shifted the minors from Layyah to Lahore upon which
application of respondent No.3 was again returned to her for its
presentation before the court having competent jurisdiction. The
said order was challenged by her before the Additional District
Judge, Layyah, which was accepted and the matter was remanded to
the Guardian Court, Layyah for regular trial. However, the said
judgment was challenged by the petitioner before this Court through
W.P.No.3951 of 2022 wherein this Court vide an order dated
17.10.2022 in order to determine the ordinary place of residence of
the minors at the time of filing of guardian petition, requisitioned the
original record of the school concerned as well as summoned its
responsible officer for 24.10.2022. Upon which, the said writ
petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 20.10.2022. In an order
dated 11.05.2022 in the said writ petition, annexed with this petition,
respondent No.3 stated before the Court that she was not allowed to
meet the minors upon which petitioner was directed to produce them
W.P. No.5637 of 2024
before the Court. In this background, it is manifest that not only
respondent No.3 has been intentionally kept away from the minor so
that he might not have any interaction with his mother but he has
been brainwashed too, which is reflected in the sense that he has
refused to recognize respondent No.3 as his mother.
12. As regards plea that minor Muhammad Hamza wishes to
reside with his father, it is observed that minor is not always the best
judge of where his or her welfare lies, as held by the Supreme Court
of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Aisha vs. Manzoor Hussain and
others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 436). Minor Muhammad Hamza
is of the tender age of about seven years, hence, it is not appropriate
to attach much weight to his choice in order to determine where his
welfare in relation to his custody lies. Moreover, as discussed above
the minor Muhammad Hamza has not been allowed to meet his
mother for years, therefore, his mind is seemed to have been tutored.
Refusal of the minor Hamza to recognize and meet his real mother
indeed provides an evidence of improper child rearing. It establishes
that contrary to his welfare, the petitioner failed to prevent his
misbehavior towards his mother which highlights the value system
being inculcated or allowed to be nurtured in the minor by his parent
in custody.
13. Although Muhammad Hamza is being provided school
education and religious teachings yet respondent No.3 being a doctor
and serving as an officer in a Government Department enjoys
somewhat equal status, therefore, there is no chance that the minor
will be deprived of any of the facilities being provided to him at
present. Even otherwise, there is no substitute of the natural love,
affection and care of an educated mother.
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
view that welfare of both the minors lies in their custody with their
mother and the Appellate Court rightly accepted the appeal of
respondent No.3, hence, the impugned judgment does not call for
0
W.P. No.5637 of 2024
any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973. Accordingly this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is
dismissed.
(RAHEEL KAMRAN)
JUDGE
Announced in open Court on 24.05.2024.
JUDGE
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
JUDGE
Comments
Post a Comment