The Court held that the “voice of the child” is central to decisions about custody, cannot be treated as a mere formality
In a landmark ruling underscoring the primacy of a child’s welfare and right to be heard, the Lahore High Court has dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the custody of a 12-year-old girl, affirming that her intelligent preference to live with her maternal grandmother must be respected.
The court held that the “voice of the child” is central to custody decisions and cannot be treated as a mere formality. LHC Justice Rasaal Hasan Syed emphasized that under Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, a child of sufficient maturity has the right to express a preference which must be given meaningful consideration.
Based on judgments of the superior courts, the LHC ruled that welfare is a standard of living that includes emotional, psychological and developmental needs – over and above material considerations or parental demands.
During court interaction, the child – neatly dressed, confident and articulate – clearly expressed her desire to live with her grandmother, with whom she has lived since birth and feels emotionally secure. The court noted that the child expressed discomfort with her father due to perceived neglect and affirmed her comfort and attachment to the grandmother.
It is worth mentioning that the father had sought custody under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which was initially granted by the Guardian Judge, Sialkot, on April 11, 2023. However, the District Judge, Sialkot set aside this order on June 2, 2020. Both parents have since remarried and have children from their second marriage. The father has five children, while the mother has two.
The LHC examined the case and upheld the appeal order, finding that the deciding factor was the child’s informed preference. With reference to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Muhammad Asif v. Dr. Sana Sattar (CRP No. 458 of 2024) reiterated to the court that listening to a child is a constitutional and international obligation, not an aspirational ideal. The child’s participation, the court noted, is fundamental to a justice system that respects dignity.
While they retained custody with the maternal grandmother—who was present in court and found to be alert, healthy and devoted—the court ordered the father to pay regular child support. It also ordered the court concerned to immediately enforce and finalize a workable visitation plan that ensures the welfare of the child remains paramount.
The court noted that handing over custody of minor girls to maternal grandmothers during sensitive developmental years is well known in the law, citing several precedents where such arrangements were upheld in the best interests of the child.
Concluding that the District Judge’s order protects the minor’s welfare and faithfully honors the child’s voice, the LHC dismissed the petition.
