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
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
LHC voids 1987 land transfer, restores sisters' inheritance after decades
Listen to article 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. Read: 'Property may be gifted verbally' 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. 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 Malik Javed Iqbal Wains 'This contradictory approach is patently untenable in law,' Justice Wains remarked. 'It is a settled principle that once a court has conclusively affirmed a factual finding on a material issue—particularly relating to the validity of the main transaction—it cannot, without lawful justification or cogent reasons, render a subsequent finding that directly negates its own earlier conclusion." The judge ruled that such internal inconsistency amounted to 'a misreading and non-reading of evidence,' resulting in a miscarriage of justice that warranted intervention under the court's revisional jurisdiction. Contested Tamleek Justice Wains further noted that Sattar, even in his written statement, failed to specify the date, time, place, or witnesses for the purported offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession—core ingredients of a valid Tamleek. 'These fundamental omissions cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the alleged Tamleek and render the donee's claim legally unsustainable,' he ruled. He added that the appellate court overturned the trial court's well-reasoned findings without assigning sound or cogent reasons. 'Minor inconsistencies in the petitioner's evidence do not outweigh the complete failure of the defendant to prove the core ingredients of a valid gift,' Justice Wains concluded. Read More: Women locked out of inheritance claims According to the petition, the parties are legal heirs of Ashraf Ali (deceased). The petitioner, Rasheedan, along with Shakoori and Shakila, alleged that their brother, Abdul Sattar, fraudulently executed Tamleek Mutation No1874 on June 28, 1987, during their father's illness, to deprive them of their legal and Islamic inheritance. The plaintiff stated that Ashraf Ali was paralyzed and unable to speak, hear, or walk at the time. It further alleged that the mutation was attested with the connivance of revenue officials, using a fake thumb impression on the rapat Roznamcha Waqaiti - an entry in the daily diary of events kept by the patwari to maintain records of notable incidents about land affairs inlcuding natural disasters, transactions pertaining to land, mutations, gifts and more. The trial court initially ruled in favour of the sisters, but the appellate court later overturned that decision and ruled in favour of Abdul Sattar. The sisters then appealed to LHC, which reinstated the trial court's findings, declared the Tamleek mutation void, and restored the sisters' share in the inheritance.
Business Recorder
16 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Balochistan PA condemns Degari honour killings
QUETTA: The Balochistan Assembly Tuesday passed a unanimous condemnation resolution against the brutal double honour killing of a man and a woman in the Sinjadi Degari area of Quetta, calling the act inhumane, illegal, and a violation of both Islamic teachings and constitutional rights. The session, chaired by Speaker Abdul Khaliq Achakzai, began 45 minutes late and opened with Fatiha for the martyrs of recent terrorist attacks and fallen security personnel in the province. The joint resolution, presented by MPA Ghazala Gola and supported by other members, condemned the killing of unarmed individuals in the name of honor and stated that no person has the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner. 'Justice is the sole responsibility of the state,' read the text, urging the government to ensure the accused receive exemplary punishment. Women lawmakers, including Shahida Rauf, Mena Majeed, and Farah Azeem Shah, delivered powerful speeches condemning the Degari incident, describing it as a societal failure and a throwback to 'centuries of backwardness.' Mena Majeed said, 'Women around the world are reaching the moon, while women in Balochistan are being murdered in the name of honor.' Rauf demanded strict action and legislative reforms, calling for the formation of a joint government-opposition committee to oversee the investigation. She also questioned the role of traditional jirgas, suggesting they be redirected toward positive societal contributions rather than reinforcing outdated customs. Farah Azeem Shah criticised the double standards in the justice system, emphasising that 'honor does not mean taking a woman's life, but protecting her dignity.' Religious leader Hidayat-ur-Rehman, while condemning the killings, warned against adopting what he described as a "Western mindset" and stressed the need for balance, saying, 'No one has the right to kill in the name of honor, but no one should be allowed to violate our cultural and religious values either.' The House acknowledged that while laws against honor killings exist, implementation remains weak and societal mindset change is necessary. The resolution reaffirmed that such crimes have no link to religion, tradition, or morality and urged urgent action. The session was adjourned until 3:00 PM on July 25, 2025.
Express Tribune
16 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Amnesty urges probe into Israeli strike on Tehran prison
Amnesty International on Tuesday called for a war crimes investigation into Israel's deadly air attack on Tehran's Evin prison during last month's 12-day war. The strike, confirmed by Israel, killed 79 people, according to a provisional tally by Iranian authorities. It also destroyed part of the administrative building in Evin, a large, heavily fortified complex in the north of Tehran, which rights groups say holds political prisoners and foreign nationals. Amnesty International, an international non-governmental organisation that campaigns to protect human rights, called the Israeli attack "deliberate" and "a serious violation of international humanitarian law". The air strikes should therefore be "criminally investigated as war crimes", it said. "The Israeli military carried out multiple air strikes on Evin prison, killing and injuring scores of civilians and causing extensive damage and destruction in at least six locations across the prison complex," Amnesty said, basing its assessment on what it said were verified video footage, satellite images and witness statements. There was nothing to suggest that Evin prison could justifiably be seen as a "legal military objective", it said. The strike on Evin was part of a bombardment campaign Israel launched on Iranian targets on June 13 with the stated aim of stopping the Islamic republic from acquiring nuclear weapon capabilities. The victims of the June 23 attack included administrative staff, guards, prisoners and visiting relatives, as well as people living nearby. Between 1,500 and 2,000 prisoners were being held at the time in the prison. Among them were Cecile Kohler and Jacques Paris, two French nationals arrested three years ago accused of espionage.
