Skip to main content

Landmark Decision on Custody of Minor

A wonderful Judgment setting guiding principles in Custody Cases for Family Courts. The entire judgment can be obtained at citation "2018 SCMR 1991".

The first point clearly states that underage children will stay with their mother till they attain the age of puberty.

Second point is that education, uniform, books and pick and drop for school will be the responsibility of the father. The father, apart from educational expenditures, every month will also provide another Rs5,000 for the miscellaneous needs of the children.

Third, the children will be able to visit the father every holiday at his home. The father will take the children from the mother’s house at 8pm on Friday and drop the children back at 1pm on Sunday.

Fourth, on the onset of summer holidays, the father will be able to take the children on the first Sunday and keep the children for four Sundays and on the fourth Sunday; the children will be dropped back at the mother’s house.

Fifth, during winter holidays from December 21 to 31, the children will stay with the father during the first week and then return their mother.

Sixth, the children will stay with the father from Chand Raat of Eidul Fitr 8pm of the second day of Eid.

Seventh, the father will take the children on the second day of Eidul Adha at 11am and drop the children back at 10pm on the third day of Eid.

Eight, on unscheduled holidays, the children will stay with the father from 10am till 8pm.

Ninth, if there is any function such as marriage and the father desires the children to participate, then it will be binding on the mother to let the children participate.

Tenth, the mother and father will not incite the children against each other.

It is a non-binding judgment as it came out of a consent of parties in the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The decision has also been published in the SCMR gazette as 2018 SCMR 1991. This news is taken from different newspapers published on 21st April 2019.


Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan (Golra) 
International Family Lawyer
+92-333-5339880

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property

  PLJ 2026 SC 96 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present:   Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ. AYESHA TAYYAB--Petitioner versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION CANTT.DISTRICT SIALKOT, etc.--Respondents C.P. No. 1575 of 2024, decided on 22.5.2025. (On appeal against the order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2024) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 406--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199(1)(a)(ii)--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), S. 561-A--Quashment of criminal proceedings and Quashment of FIR--Entrustment of property and dishonest   misappropriation   of   entrusted   property--“Qarz-e-Hasna”--Amount was handed over as a loan/trust--High Court observed that no offence under section 406 PPC was made out from contents of FIR and proceeded to quash same under its constitutional jurisdiction conferred by Article 199--Contents of FIR determine whether a cogni...

Co-sharer

Possession of one co-sharer in possession of all . 1998 MLD 857, 1857; 2006 YLR 831; 2008 SCMR 661, 616; 2008 SCMR 905. Co-sharer to establish right of co-heirship . 2008 MLD 278.  For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006

Prosecution should be afforded fair opportunity of trial

  PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 42 [Balochistan High Court, Quetta] Present:  Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ. Dr.  MUHAMMAD ARIF--Appellant versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 3 others--Respondents Crl. Acq. A. No. 461 of 2019, decided on 21.12.2020. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----Ss. 265-K, 249-A & 417(2)--Jurisdiction u/S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.--Exercise of powers--Appeal against acquittal--The object of exercise of powers is to prevent abuse of law available to learned trial Court under sections 265-K and 249-A of Cr.P.C., however, in a case where sufficient, prima facie, evidence is available, powers may not be exercised as to throttle process of justice--The primary consideration to be kept in view would be whether continuance of proceedings before could be a futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of Court or not--If on basis of facts admitted and a patent on record no offence can be made out, then it would amount to abuse of proc...