AGL 35.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-1.4%)
AIRLINK 123.23 Decreased By ▼ -10.27 (-7.69%)
BOP 5.04 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.41%)
CNERGY 3.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-2.98%)
DCL 8.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-3.21%)
DFML 44.22 Decreased By ▼ -3.18 (-6.71%)
DGKC 74.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.65 (-0.87%)
FCCL 24.47 Increased By ▲ 0.22 (0.91%)
FFBL 48.20 Increased By ▲ 2.20 (4.78%)
FFL 8.78 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-1.68%)
HUBC 145.85 Decreased By ▼ -8.25 (-5.35%)
HUMNL 10.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-1.36%)
KEL 4.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.48%)
KOSM 8.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.88 (-9.91%)
MLCF 32.80 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.15%)
NBP 57.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.65 (-1.12%)
OGDC 145.35 Increased By ▲ 2.55 (1.79%)
PAEL 25.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-1%)
PIBTL 5.76 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-2.7%)
PPL 116.80 Increased By ▲ 2.20 (1.92%)
PRL 24.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.62%)
PTC 11.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.42 (-3.66%)
SEARL 58.41 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (0.71%)
TELE 7.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-2.85%)
TOMCL 41.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.1%)
TPLP 8.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-4.15%)
TREET 15.20 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.8%)
TRG 55.20 Decreased By ▼ -4.70 (-7.85%)
UNITY 27.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.54%)
WTL 1.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.74%)
BR100 8,528 Increased By 68.1 (0.8%)
BR30 26,868 Decreased By -400.5 (-1.47%)
KSE100 81,459 Increased By 998 (1.24%)
KSE30 25,800 Increased By 331.7 (1.3%)

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

200 characters