AGL 38.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
AIRLINK 213.91 Increased By ▲ 3.53 (1.68%)
BOP 9.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.63%)
CNERGY 6.29 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-2.93%)
DCL 8.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-2.12%)
DFML 42.21 Increased By ▲ 3.84 (10.01%)
DGKC 94.12 Decreased By ▼ -2.80 (-2.89%)
FCCL 35.19 Decreased By ▼ -1.21 (-3.32%)
FFBL 88.94 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFL 16.39 Increased By ▲ 1.44 (9.63%)
HUBC 126.90 Decreased By ▼ -3.79 (-2.9%)
HUMNL 13.37 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.6%)
KEL 5.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-3.45%)
KOSM 6.94 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.14%)
MLCF 42.98 Decreased By ▼ -1.80 (-4.02%)
NBP 58.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.37%)
OGDC 219.42 Decreased By ▼ -10.71 (-4.65%)
PAEL 39.16 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-0.33%)
PIBTL 8.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-1.56%)
PPL 191.66 Decreased By ▼ -8.69 (-4.34%)
PRL 37.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.96 (-2.47%)
PTC 26.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.54 (-2.01%)
SEARL 104.00 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (0.36%)
TELE 8.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.71%)
TOMCL 34.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-1.42%)
TPLP 12.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.64 (-4.73%)
TREET 25.34 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (1.32%)
TRG 70.45 Increased By ▲ 6.33 (9.87%)
UNITY 33.39 Decreased By ▼ -1.13 (-3.27%)
WTL 1.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-3.37%)
BR100 11,881 Decreased By -216 (-1.79%)
BR30 36,807 Decreased By -908.3 (-2.41%)
KSE100 110,423 Decreased By -1991.5 (-1.77%)
KSE30 34,778 Decreased By -730.1 (-2.06%)

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.