In The Lahore High Court Lahore. Judicial Department: Order Sheet

1
W.P.No.12044/2021
Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
LAHORE.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P.No.12044/2021
Jehangir Siraj Dogar Vs. Learned District Judge etc
S. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge, and that of

order/ order/ parties or counsel, where necessary.
proceeding proceeding
22.2.2021. M/S Shaharyar Sanaullah Hashmi and Bawar
Hussain Dogar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Aasia Sikandar Khan, Advocate for the
respondent (on watching brief).
Through this constitutional petition, the
petitioner (father) has challenge the judgment dated
16.11.2020 passed by learned Appellate Court
whereby meeting schedule of the three minors with
respondent No.2 (mother) was modified.
2. Relevant facts are that respondent No.2 filed
a guardian petition which was decided on 20.5.2019
by way of compromise and it was settled that
minors would reside for three days with respondent
No.2 (mother) and four days with petitioner (father)
in a week. On 27.4.2020, second guardian petition
was filed by the petitioner, in which, interim
custody of the minors were handed over to the
petitioner under section 12 of the Guardian and

2
W.P.No.12044/2021
Wards Act, 1890 (Act), however, respondent No.2
was allowed to meet minors from 2.00 p.m every
Saturday to 5.00 p.m every Sunday but not without
the will of the minors. The appeal filed by
respondent No.2 was dismissed regarding interim
custody on 16.11.2020, however, the schedule of
meeting was modified to the effect that minors
being of impressionable age, their willingness could
not be counted for their meeting with their mother.
The petitioner father being aggrieved has filed this
constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that minors do not want to meet their mother,
therefore, visitation schedule is not sustainable
without consent of the minors. Learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 who was present on watching
brief put in appearance and supported the impugned
visitation schedule.
4. Arguments heard. It is a recognizing principal
that the question of custody of visitation schedule
cannot be determined solely by deduction from the
rule of law rather it requires an exercise of judicial
discretion dependent upon the relevant facts and

3
W.P.No.12044/2021
circumstances. No doubt, in present case, all the
three minors appeared before learned Judge Family
Court and stated that they want to live with their
father, however, this does not mean that they be
kept away for all time from their mother and not
allowed to develop any bonding with her. Learned
Appellate Court has rightly observed that since both
the parties are at dagger drawn, it cannot be ruled
out that the minors would have been subjected to
some brain washing against mother.
5. There is no cavil with the proposition that
once the children reached the age of discretion, the
custody matters are to be disposed of in terms of
their wishes which itself will constitute their
welfare. However, this rule is not absolute and
honourable Supreme Court in Syed Maqsood Ali vs.
Sofia Naushaba (1986 SCMR 426) clearly mention
that where the parents were involved in litigation
for a long period of time and children had remained
with one of the parent, it cannot have been ruled
out that the children were acting under the
influence of said parent. In the said case, the
honourable Supreme Court refused to go by the

4
W.P.No.12044/2021
statement of the children and instead directed the
parties to come up with viable formula. This Court
in Mukhtar Ahmad Khan vs. Mst. Aziza Begum
(PLD 1975 Lahore 86) was pleased to observe that
desire express by minor to live with either of the
parents, was not sufficient by itself to control the
question of custody. In Mrs. Parveen v. Kh.
Muhammad Ashar (PLD 1975 Lahore 334), it was
observed that estrangements between parents and
children should be avoided at all costs and mere
allegation by husband that woman was of immoral
character was not sufficient to refuse custody to the
mother.
6. The above case law is regarding final
custody of the minor where it is held that the
statement of minor may not be treated as
conclusive rule to determine custody. However, in
the present case, only visitation rights of the mother
are involved which are distinct in nature from
custody, therefore, the statement of minor will have
very low probative value in relation to visitation
rights of the mother, especially where interim
custody is already given to the father. This Court in

5
W.P.No.12044/2021
Mrs. Shaukat Khalid vs. Additional District Judge,
Rawalpindi and 2 others (1989 CLC 1377) held
that the preference of the minor is not binding on
the Court and it is the duty of the Court while
exercising its parental jurisdiction to adjudge the
welfare of the minor. The relevant observations are
as under:-
“It may be mentioned that although

preference of the minor may, in such cases,
be taken into consideration but it is not
always relevant because the minor is not the
best Judge as to where his (or her) welfare
lies. We have noticed generally that a child
is apt to prefer to continue living with the
parents or relative with whom he/she has
been allowed to live for some time as such
person is in a position, be it the father or the
mother, to brainwash the child against the
other claimant to the child’s custody”
7. The learned Court in case of Shaukat
Kahlid supra further held that:-
“The preference expert doubt, relevant,

but not final or binding on the Courts. It
has to be judged with reference to the
welfare of the minor. The minor being
under the direct influence of the
petitioner and apparently tutored rather
6
W.P.No.12044/2021
brainwashed by her, has levelled wild

allegations against her own parents and
even stated that she would die rather than
go to her parents. Immature as she is she
cannot visualize the hazards of life and
exercise sound discretion qua her
welfare. It is the duty of the Court while
exercising its parental jurisdiction, to
judge the welfare of the minor in the
context of the facts and circumstances of
each case”
Same view was also expressed by learned
Sindh High Court in Saad Amanullah Khan vs. IVth
Senior Civil Judge, (South), Karachi and 3 others
(PLD 2008 Karachi 499).
8. There is no substitute to a real mother. It is
well-known Hadith reported in Ibne Majja, one of
the celebrated Books of Hadith, that Moawiya bin
Maida (God be pleased with him) asked the Holy
Prophet (Peace be upon him) that with whom he
should do good. The Holy Prophet (Peace be upon
him) answered, “Be kind to your mother.”. The
question was repeated and the answer was “To your
mother.” For the third time the same question was
put and the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) said
“Do good to your mother.” When the forth time this

7
W.P.No.12044/2021
question was repeated, the Holy Prophet (Peace be
upon him) replied, “To your father and afterwards to
your other relatives.” This shows the degree of
preference accorded to the mother over the father
and others.
9. In view of above discussion, to deprive the
mother from meeting to minors would not only be
extremely harsh and cruel but will also be against
the welfare and interest of minors who will further
be influenced and brain washed against their
mother and will never be able to develop any
bonding with her.
10. In the circumstances, learned Appellate Court
has lawfully and justly applied its judicial mind in
modifying the schedule of visitation and allowed
meeting of minors with respondent (mother).
Accordingly, for what has been discussed above,
this petition being merit-less is dismissed.
(ABID AZIZ SHEIKH)

JUDGE.
Approved for reporting.
JUDGE.

In The Lahore High Court Lahore. Judicial Department: Order Sheet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Lahore High Court Lahore. Judicial Department: Order Sheet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Lahore High Court Lahore. Judicial Department: Order Sheet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Form No: HCJD/C-121

Jehangir Siraj Dogar Vs. Learned District Judge etc

S. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge, and that of

Through this constitutional petition, the

petitioner (father) has challenge the judgment dated

16.11.2020 passed by learned Appellate Court

whereby meeting schedule of the three minors with

respondent No.2 (mother) was modified.

2. Relevant facts are that respondent No.2 filed

a guardian petition which was decided on 20.5.2019

by way of compromise and it was settled that

minors would reside for three days with respondent

No.2 (mother) and four days with petitioner (father)

in a week. On 27.4.2020, second guardian petition

was filed by the petitioner, in which, interim

custody of the minors were handed over to the

petitioner under section 12 of the Guardian and

Wards Act, 1890 (Act), however, respondent No.2

was allowed to meet minors from 2.00 p.m every

Saturday to 5.00 p.m every Sunday but not without

the will of the minors. The appeal filed by

respondent No.2 was dismissed regarding interim

custody on 16.11.2020, however, the schedule of

meeting was modified to the effect that minors

being of impressionable age, their willingness could

not be counted for their meeting with their mother.

The petitioner father being aggrieved has filed this

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that minors do not want to meet their mother,

therefore, visitation schedule is not sustainable

without consent of the minors. Learned counsel for

the respondent No.2 who was present on watching

brief put in appearance and supported the impugned

4. Arguments heard. It is a recognizing principal

that the question of custody of visitation schedule

cannot be determined solely by deduction from the

rule of law rather it requires an exercise of judicial

discretion dependent upon the relevant facts and

circumstances. No doubt, in present case, all the

three minors appeared before learned Judge Family

Court and stated that they want to live with their

father, however, this does not mean that they be

allowed to develop any bonding with her. Learned

Appellate Court has rightly observed that since both

the parties are at dagger drawn, it cannot be ruled

out that the minors would have been subjected to

some brain washing against mother.

5. There is no cavil with the proposition that

once the children reached the age of discretion, the

custody matters are to be disposed of in terms of

their wishes which itself will constitute their

welfare. However, this rule is not absolute and

honourable Supreme Court in Syed Maqsood Ali vs.

Sofia Naushaba (1986 SCMR 426) clearly mention

that where the parents were involved in litigation

for a long period of time and children had remained

with one of the parent, it cannot have been ruled