AGL 38.78 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-1.82%)
AIRLINK 194.29 Increased By ▲ 17.66 (10%)
BOP 10.84 Increased By ▲ 0.75 (7.43%)
CNERGY 6.87 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DCL 10.19 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (2.62%)
DFML 43.13 Increased By ▲ 0.39 (0.91%)
DGKC 96.61 Decreased By ▼ -1.56 (-1.59%)
FCCL 38.07 Decreased By ▼ -1.24 (-3.15%)
FFBL 81.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.43 (-0.53%)
FFL 14.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-2.5%)
HUBC 118.98 Decreased By ▼ -2.46 (-2.03%)
HUMNL 14.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-3.72%)
KEL 5.74 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (1.41%)
KOSM 8.49 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (4.56%)
MLCF 46.54 Decreased By ▼ -1.57 (-3.26%)
NBP 77.23 Increased By ▲ 1.41 (1.86%)
OGDC 194.78 Decreased By ▼ -2.63 (-1.33%)
PAEL 34.74 Increased By ▲ 2.36 (7.29%)
PIBTL 8.38 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (2.82%)
PPL 174.57 Decreased By ▼ -0.93 (-0.53%)
PRL 33.17 Decreased By ▼ -0.92 (-2.7%)
PTC 24.57 Increased By ▲ 2.23 (9.98%)
SEARL 110.04 Increased By ▲ 6.84 (6.63%)
TELE 8.90 Increased By ▲ 0.39 (4.58%)
TOMCL 34.83 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-0.57%)
TPLP 11.69 Increased By ▲ 0.43 (3.82%)
TREET 18.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-3.08%)
TRG 60.06 Increased By ▲ 1.50 (2.56%)
UNITY 36.49 Increased By ▲ 1.63 (4.68%)
WTL 1.75 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (10.06%)
BR100 11,701 Increased By 49.8 (0.43%)
BR30 35,411 Decreased By -67.2 (-0.19%)
KSE100 109,054 Increased By 815 (0.75%)
KSE30 33,849 Increased By 155.6 (0.46%)

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.