No inheritance benefits for adopted minors
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has upheld a family court's ruling, declaring that biological parents have the preferential right to a child's custody, declaring the oral adoption arrangement unjustified.
The court further observed that the minor could not inherit from the adopter family, reinforcing the legal and Islamic principles governing guardianship and inheritance.
The case revolved around Ameer Hamza, a minor born on July 7, 2021, as the third son in his family. On the day of his birth, he was given in adoption to his father's maternal uncle and aunt, with the full consent of his biological parents and paternal grandparents.
The agreement hinged on a condition that if the biological parents were later blessed with another son, they would allow his adoption to the couple, who had three daughters but no sons.
However, after nearly 20 months, the biological mother filed a petition on April 14, 2023, seeking her son's custody, arguing that she had been coerced into the adoption agreement.
She stated that her consent was conditional, based on an assurance from the adopter family that she would be allowed unrestricted access to her child.
She alleged that the adopter family violated this agreement and, around 15 days before she filed the petition, forcibly took the minor away while he was with her.
During the proceedings, the adopter family presented a birth certificate showing the child's parentage under their names rather than the biological parents.
The counsel of the real family argued that as such, it is inviolable right of the real parents to seek custody of the minor being her natural guardian. Accordingly, the real family prayed that custody of the minor be conferred to the real parents and his birth certificate be also amended by incorporating their names.
The counsel for the adoptive family contended before the court that his clients have the deepest love for the minor, who, in turn, is profoundly attached to them and recognizes them as his parents.
He argued that his clients have left no stone unturned in ensuring a peaceful and flourishing life for the minor's well-being and have never created any impediment to the real parents' free access to meet him whenever they wished.
Furthermore, they are willing to undertake any additional arrangements to facilitate the real parents' access to the minor. Hence, he implored the court that the minor's best welfare lies with them, entitling them to retain his custody.
After framing issues and recording evidence, the family court held that, as an adopted child, the minor cannot inherit from the adoptive family, which is considered alien to him and falls within the prohibitory degree.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
15 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC rejects Commissioner IR's plea against LHC order
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition of Commissioner Inland Revenue against the Lahore High Court (LHC) order, saying the findings on facts does not suffer from any illegality or error. The petitioner department had assailed the LHC, Rawalpindi bench's order dated 26.03.2025, whereby, reference application filed under Section 47 of the Sales Tax 1990 by the petitioner against the order dated 4.01.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR), Islamabad, was dismissed. A two-judge bench of Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi heard Commissioner Inland Revenue's appeal. The court noted that the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue in the instant case, against the respondents (M/s Mustafa Enterprises) are based on vague and frivolous allegations and certain conclusions have been made on mere presumptions only, whereas, no material or evidence has been produced to substantiate the same. The court further noted that while passing the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue exceeded his jurisdiction while travelling beyond the very premises and the allegations made in the show cause notice, whereas, the respondents were never confronted with any such allegations or entries as reflected in the bank statement which were subsequently furnished by the respondents, showing the details of the total amount and the particulars of suppliers from whom purchases were made. It observed that while initiating the proceedings against the respondents, there was no material or evidence available on record to make out a case against the respondents of illegal or inadmissible claim of input tax adjustment, whereas, the entire proceedings and the Order-in-Original passed in the instant case was based on presumptions, whereas, no inquiry or verification was made by the department in respect of alleged fake/flying invoices. The SC judgment said that the ATIR and the Division Bench of LHC were justified to set aside both the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, while recording concurrent findings on facts which does not suffer from any illegality or error. The proceedings in the instant matter were initiated by Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue Unit-IV Cantt Zone RTO, Rawalpindi vide show cause notice dated 10.08.2021, whereby, the respondents were required to submit the record to prove as to whether the purchases made for the (Tax Period July 2019 to June 2020) amounting to Rs323,722,601 against which an amount of Rs55,032,846 was claimed as input tax, were actually made by them. It was further alleged in the show-cause notice that the record submitted by the respondents does not prove as to whether such purchases were actually made by the respondents during subject period, therefore, they have also failed to comply with the requirements of Section 73 of the Act. It was concluded that respondents did not purchase any coal from the local suppliers and unlawfully claimed input tax on the basis of fake/ flying invoices issued by the dubious suppliers, therefore, caused loss to the national exchequer to the tune of Rs55,032,846 by violating the provisions 6,7,8,22,23,26 and 73 read with Section 2(37) of the Act. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
LHC restores three sisters' inheritance rights
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has restored the inheritance rights of three sisters after 38 years, nullifying a controversial Tamleek (gift mutation) that their brother had used to fraudulently deprive them of their lawful share in their father's property. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains of the LHC's Multan Bench ruled that the Tamleek mutation, executed on June 28, 1987, was invalid. The court rejected the respondent Abdul Sattar's claim that their late father had gifted him 33 Biggas and a few Marlas of land out of "love and affection". Abdul Sattar contended that the transfer was made while their father was in good health, and that he had obtained verbal consent from his sisters three to four months prior to the transaction. He also claimed that possession of the land was delivered to him at the time of the mutation. However, the court found neither any written proof of consent nor any testimony from independent witnesses to support the claims of offer, acceptance, or delivery of possession. Justice Wains observed that the justification provided — disinheriting the daughters out of love and affection for the son — was "seriously questionable". He added that even if the intention behind the Tamleek was described as pious, "it is inconceivable how depriving daughters of their Shariah-mandated inheritance could be treated as an act of virtue". He further noted, "The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of daughters in their father's estate. Any attempt to defeat this divine commandment through a dubious transaction is not legally sustainable." Justice Wains strongly criticised the appellate court's contradictory findings noting that the appellate court had itself affirmed in paragraph No9 of its judgment that the trial court correctly found the alleged gift invalid. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains observed that the appellate court initially held that Abdul Sattar (defendant No.1) failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift (Tamleek), but then inexplicably reversed that conclusion in paragraph No.10 by overturning the trial court's findings on issue No.2, without offering any new evidence or legal justification.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Chinese woman's khula takes legal twist
A case filed by a Chinese woman seeking divorce (khula) from her Pakistani husband has taken a new twist after conflicting decisions from the high court and a lower court, raising questions over whether she can legally obtain khula in Pakistan, who will get custody of their 12-year-old daughter, and whether the woman will be granted a visa to stay in the country until the matter is resolved. According to court documents, Chinese national Mir Guli married Shah Zeb, a trader from Charsadda, in China in 2011. A year later, she gave birth to a daughter, Sofia. Mir Guli claims that her husband, without informing her, registered Sofia's record with NADRA in Pakistan, effectively revoking her Chinese nationality, but did not register Mir Guli as his wife. Distressed by her husband's behaviour, she filed for khula in a Pakistani family court. Her counsel, Supreme Court Advocate Saeed Yousaf Khan, said the case took a major turn when Shah Zeb's legal team argued before the family court that since the marriage took place in China and was registered there, Pakistani courts lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter. However, Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi of the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court ruled that the case could indeed be heard and decided in Pakistan where the wife is residing. The judge directed the lower court to hear the matter on a daily basis, keeping in view the woman's visa status, and instructed the Ministry of Interior's visa section to review her case. Despite this, Family Court Judge Taimoor Afzal dismissed Mir Guli's khula plea on jurisdictional grounds on the same day the high court declared the case admissible. An appeal has now been filed before the Sessions Judge, along with a separate petition for custody of 12-year-old Sofia, who is currently living with her father.
