BR100 Increased By (0.12%)
BR30 Increased By (0.28%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.26%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.26%)
AGHA 7.63 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.53%)
BECO 5.57 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (1.09%)
BML 59.74 Increased By ▲ 0.66 (1.12%)
BOP 34.40 Increased By ▲ 0.29 (0.85%)
CNERGY 13.11 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (2.1%)
CSIL 6.41 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (5.08%)
FCCL 58.06 Increased By ▲ 0.40 (0.69%)
FFL 16.23 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.19%)
FNEL 1.21 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 7.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.67%)
KOSM 6.03 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.52%)
LOTCHEM 27.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.32 (-1.14%)
MLCF 102.75 Increased By ▲ 2.10 (2.09%)
NBP 205.06 Increased By ▲ 1.31 (0.64%)
NCPL 59.63 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-1.55%)
NPL 68.56 Decreased By ▼ -1.40 (-2%)
OGDC 318.92 Decreased By ▼ -1.37 (-0.43%)
PACE 11.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.45%)
PAEL 43.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.05%)
PIBTL 16.63 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.42%)
PPL 229.45 Increased By ▲ 0.61 (0.27%)
PRL 70.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.31%)
PTC 71.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.65 (-0.91%)
SSGC 27.41 Increased By ▲ 0.73 (2.74%)
TBL 10.31 Increased By ▲ 0.50 (5.1%)
TELE 8.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.93%)
TPL 23.06 Increased By ▲ 0.82 (3.69%)
TPLP 15.76 Increased By ▲ 0.65 (4.3%)
TREET 24.71 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (2.4%)
TRG 60.29 Increased By ▲ 0.45 (0.75%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) held that sub-section 2 of section 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 permits the courts to grant special leave to take the ward from its territorial jurisdiction for the wellbeing of a child.

The court said such leave can be granted, on a case-to-case basis, when the welfare of the ward is so demanding and when the ward is exceedingly cautious in using this power.

The court observed that from a plain reading of section 26 of the Guardian Act 1890, it do not see any intention of the legislature to place a complete embargo on granting permission to restrict wards within the jurisdiction.

Otherwise, the courts would not have been empowered to grant leave to take the ward out of the territorial jurisdiction, the court added.

The court passed this order in a petition of Saadia Khalil and allowed her to take minor Rayyan to the USA for education purposes.

The court after going through the available documents and hearing the arguments, observed that the appellate court has not exercised the jurisdiction conferred by law to properly consider the request of the petitioner.

It has been ignored that the respondent-father is not taking any interest or contributing for the welfare of the minor and his complete failure to observe the visitation schedule, framed by the guardian court, the court added.

The court does not consider it in the welfare of the minor to deprive him of joining his educational institution in the USA, restricting him within the territorial jurisdiction of the guardian court.

The court agreed with the amicus curiae who stated that the appellate court should have proceeded to give findings on the merits of the case by considering the request to permit the petitioner-mother to take the minor to the USA for education purposes, instead of making the mother or the minor to go through further rigors.

The court asked the petitioner-mother who undertook to inform the guardian court about the change of address to appear before the guardian court for intimation about her present residence address and name as well as the address of the educational institution of the minor in the USA.

The court; however, observed that the respondent-father can approach the guardian court for cancellation of the permission granted in case of breach of undertaking or any other relevant condition imposed by the guardian court.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.