-Application moved by grandparent---Maintainability---Respondent (grand-mother of the minor) instituted application for interim custody and visitation rights of minor girl, whereas the petitioner (mother of the minor) filed application for rejection of the same on the ground of maintainability--

 2021 Y L R 1989

Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)---

----Ss. 8 & 12---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5, Sched.---Interim custody of minor---'Parent'---Scope---Application moved by grandparent---Maintainability---Respondent (grand-mother of the minor) instituted application for interim custody and visitation rights of minor girl, whereas the petitioner (mother of the minor) filed application for rejection of the same on the ground of maintainability---Guardian Court rejected the application of petitioner---Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court contending that only the parents could request for the visitation right of the minor as the 'grandmother' was not covered in the definition of 'parent'---Validity---Record revealed that parents of the minor got married to each other but , soon after the birth of minor, the divorce was effected---Intensity of estrangement was so high that a criminal case was got registered on the behest of father of the petitioner which though was later cancelled---Father of the minor was a foreign national, who came back after the birth of child to see new-born child and to reconcile but the efforts failed and he returned abroad after pronouncing divorce---Petitioner had referred to definition of the word 'parent' from dictionaries, which included adoptive parents, but such concept was not recognized in Islam---Keeping in view the fact in the present case that neither the real father of the minor had come forward with any definite plea nor the effort was made to implead him as a party, his tacit approval could be presumed---Proceedings before the Guardian Court were for the visitation right of the minor only, therefore, the application filed by the grandmother was competent---Constitutional petition dismissed, in circumstances.

----S. 5, Sched.---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Ss. 8 & 12---'Parent'---Scope---Interim custody of minor---Application moved by the grandmother (respondent) before the Guardian Court---Maintainability---Contention of the petitioner (mother of minor) was that only the parents could request for the visitation right of the minor as the 'grandmother' was not covered in the definition of 'parent'---Held, that the word 'parent' used in S. 5 and the Sched. of the Family Courts Act, 1964, was wider in sense and was not restricted to its literal meaning particularly when the grandchild was entitled to inheritance from the grandparent---Application of the respondent (grandmother) was maintainable before the Guardian Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

S. 5, Sched.---Family Court (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 (LV of 2002), Preamble---Guardian and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Ss. 8 & 12---Interim custody of minor---Application moved by the grandmother before the Guardian Court--- Maintainability--- 'Parent'---Scope---Respondent (grandmother of the minor) instituted application for interim custody and visitation rights of minor girl, whereas the petitioner (mother of the minor) filed the application for rejection of the same on the ground of maintainability--- Guardian Court rejected the application of petitioner---Contention of the petitioner was that the Family Courts Act, 1964, was promulgated as a special act for special class of people i.e. husband and wife in case of their custody---Validity---Although contention of the petitioner was correct but the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, also dealt with the situation where only grandparents were contestants, therefore, the same would not stop the Guardian Court to adjudicate upon matter-in-hand---In the Family Court Act, 1964, the Schecule made under S. 5 thereof, prescribed "custody of the children" in clause (5), however, an amendment was made through Family Court (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 and after " custody of children" the words "and the visitation rights of parents to meet them" were added---Application of the respondent (grandmother) was maintainable before the Guardian Court--

Constitutional petition filed against an interlocutory order of Guardian Court---Maintainability---Interim custody of minor---Impugned order was just an interlocutory order holding that the application of interim custody/visitation right filed by the grandmother could proceed and the same was not even an order deciding the application filed by the grandmother, therefore, constitutional petition was not maintainable since an appeal could be filed against the final order---