AGL 40.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-0.4%)
AIRLINK 129.53 Decreased By ▼ -2.20 (-1.67%)
BOP 6.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.15%)
CNERGY 4.63 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (3.58%)
DCL 8.94 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.36%)
DFML 41.69 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (2.66%)
DGKC 83.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.31 (-0.37%)
FCCL 32.77 Increased By ▲ 0.43 (1.33%)
FFBL 75.47 Increased By ▲ 6.86 (10%)
FFL 11.47 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.06%)
HUBC 110.55 Decreased By ▼ -1.21 (-1.08%)
HUMNL 14.56 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (1.75%)
KEL 5.39 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (3.26%)
KOSM 8.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-6.46%)
MLCF 39.79 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (0.91%)
NBP 60.29 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
OGDC 199.66 Increased By ▲ 4.72 (2.42%)
PAEL 26.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.15%)
PIBTL 7.66 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (2.41%)
PPL 157.92 Increased By ▲ 2.15 (1.38%)
PRL 26.73 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.19%)
PTC 18.46 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.87%)
SEARL 82.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-0.7%)
TELE 8.31 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.97%)
TOMCL 34.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.12%)
TPLP 9.06 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (2.84%)
TREET 17.47 Increased By ▲ 0.77 (4.61%)
TRG 61.32 Decreased By ▼ -1.13 (-1.81%)
UNITY 27.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.04%)
WTL 1.38 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (7.81%)
BR100 10,407 Increased By 220 (2.16%)
BR30 31,713 Increased By 377.1 (1.2%)
KSE100 97,328 Increased By 1781.9 (1.86%)
KSE30 30,192 Increased By 614.4 (2.08%)

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.