Jurisdiction in Family Cases is Flexible and can shift based on Valid Relocation Reasons --- Lahore High Court Transfers Guardianship Case from Multan to Sialkot for Mother’s Convenience  

Islamabad 22-02-2025: In a significant ruling, the Lahore High Court (LHC) has transferred a guardianship case from Multan to Sialkot, prioritizing the convenience of the mother and minor children over rigid jurisdictional rules. The judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain in [T.A. No. 76469/2024] (Sadia Yasmeen Vs. Zeeshan Ahmed etc.), reaffirms that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration in family matters.  

The Petitioner sought the transfer of a guardianship petition filed by her former husband, from Multan Family Court to Sialkot Family Court, where she had filed her own custody claim under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. She argued that she had relocated to Sialkot due to financial constraints, security concerns, and the absence of male family support in Multan.  

On the other hand, the respondent contended that since both parties last resided in Multan, the case should remain there, citing Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965. He further argued that the petitioner had already participated in proceedings in Multan, thereby submitting to its jurisdiction.  

Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain noted that under Rule 6 of the Family Courts Rules, 1965, jurisdiction is determined by:

1. Where the cause of action arose  
2. Where the parties last resided  
3. (Proviso) In divorce/dower cases, where the wife ordinarily resides  
4. The Court ruled that since the petitioner had legally moved to Sialkot with the children, the jurisdiction had validly shifted.  
5. The Court emphasized that family litigation should not be unnecessarily split between different Courts, especially when it imposes hardship on the mother and children.  
6. It referred to a recent Supreme Court of Pakistan ruling (Mst. Sidra Hameed Vs. Syed Abdul Mateen), [CMA No. 100/2024], where a custody case was transferred to Karachi, recognizing the mother’s need for support.   
7. Rejecting the Respondent’s argument, the Court held that participating in a legal proceeding does not estop a party from later seeking a transfer based on changed circumstances.  
8. Under Section 25-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the Lahore High Court has overriding authority to transfer cases in the interest of justice and convenience.  
9. The judgment stated that jurisdictional rules should not be applied rigidly in family disputes, especially when it leads to unnecessary hardship.  
10. Reinforcing the principle of child welfare, the Court ruled that allowing the case to be heard in Sialkot would best serve the minors’ interests, ensuring they remain with their mother in a stable environment.   

The guardianship case filed by respondent in Multan was transferred to Sialkot to be heard alongside the Petitioner’s existing claim. The Court also ordered the consolidation of the mother’s pending maintenance case in Sialkot with the guardianship proceedings, ensuring a single forum for all related legal matters. All pending applications [C.M Nos. 03 and 04 of 2025] were declared infructuous.

Powered by Froala Editor