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
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Iran executes two members of opposition group
DUBAI: Iran executed two members of the banned Mujahideen-e-Khalq group for attacking civilian infrastructure with homemade projectiles, the judiciary news outlet Mizan said on Sunday, amid criticism from Amnesty International over a 'grossly unfair' trial. Mehdi Hassani and Behrouz Ehsani-Eslamloo, identified as 'operational elements' of the MEK, were sentenced to death in September 2024 - a verdict upheld by the Supreme Court, which denied their request for a retrial, Mizan said. 'The terrorists, in coordination with MEK leaders, had ... built launchers and hand-held mortars in line with the group's goals, fired projectiles heedlessly at citizens, homes, service and administrative facilities, educational and charity centres,' the report said. Maryam Rajavi, who leads the National Council of Resistance of Iran of which the MEK is the main force, paid tribute to the pair. 'Honour to these steadfast Mojahedin who, after three years of unwavering resistance under torture, pressure, and threats, fulfilled their solemn pledge to God and the people with pride and dignity.' The defendants were indicted with 'moharebeh' - an Islamic term meaning waging war against God - destroying public property and 'membership in a terrorist organisation with the aim of disrupting national security.' Amnesty International said that Ehsani-Eslamloo and Hassani were arrested in 2022 and maintained their innocence during a trial which the rights group called 'grossly unfair and marred by allegations of torture and forced confessions.' 'According to informed sources, agents interrogated them without lawyers present and subjected them to torture and other ill-treatment, including beatings and prolonged solitary confinement, to extract self-incriminating statements,' it said in January. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the number of people executed in Iran rose to at least 901 in 2024, the highest number since 2015. The MEK, known in English as People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran, was a powerful leftist-Islamist group that staged bombing campaigns against the shah's government and US targets in the 1970s but ultimately fell out with the other factions of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Since then, the MEK has opposed the Islamic Republic and its leadership in exile has been Paris-based. The group was listed as a terrorist organisation by the US and the European Union until 2012.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Imran seeks bail relief from apex court
Listen to article Former prime minister Imran Khan has challenged a Lahore High Court (LHC) order rejecting his bail pleas, contending that prosecution has adopted three different stances to link him with the alleged conspiracy of May 9, 2023 rioting incidents, all of which were rejected by different courts. The PTI founder through his counsel Salman Safdar filed a petition against the LHC order in the Supreme Court. A division bench of the high court led by Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi on June 24 held that Imran was allegedly involved in the rioting conspiracy in view of the testimonies of two police officials. Commenting on the order, the petition said the prosecution repeatedly failed to establish any credible nexus between Imran Khan and the alleged occurrence as narrated in the FIR. According to the petition, the prosecution in its attempts to link the petitioner with the purported acts of conspiracy and abetment resorted to three conflicting versions, each differing in terms of the alleged date, time, location, and witnesses of abetment. It said all three versions have been judicially disbelieved either by the anti-terrorism courts (ATCs) or by the LHC. It noted that during proceedings for pre-arrest bail before the ATC-III in Lahore, the prosecution belatedly claimed that a police official, Hassam Afzal, allegedly overheard a conspiracy at Zaman Park. It claimed that this event happened two days before May 9on May 7. The prosecution also claimed that another Inspector Asmat Kamal overheard the abetment at Chakri Rest Area five days prior to the occurrenceon May 4, 2023 "This version, however, was discredited due to the prosecution's failure to justify the delayed disclosure of such critical information and was consequently rejected by the learned Special Judge ATC-III in Lahore who confirmed the pre-arrest bails of the petitioner on March 1, 2024 in FIR No 366/23 and 1078/23." The petition said that after the collapse of its first narrative, the prosecution advanced a second version during the hearing of criminal revision before the LHC, contending that Imran Khan allegedly incited the acts through media statements. However, the prosecution could not produce any objectionable or incriminating material to substantiate this claim, which led the LHC to reject this version as well. Subsequently, the state sought to rely on the statements of three new witnessesincluding PTI leaders Sadaqat Abbasi and Wasiq Qayyumas fresh evidence to support its third version of the conspiracy. "This final attempt too was found wanting and was expressly disbelieved by the ATC-I, Rawalpindi, which discharged the co-accused Bushra Imran through a well-reasoned order dated 20.08.2024. "The prosecution's continued failure to present coherent, consistent, and credible evidence after multiple opportunities clearly brings the case within the realm of further inquiry, making the petitioner entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) CrPC 1898," it said. The petition stated that despite the rejection of all three prosecutorial versions by various competent forums, the LHC on June 24 declined Imran's bail while relying solely on the statements of the two police officialsInspector Asmat Kamal and ASI Hassam Afzal. "These very statements, however, had already been judicially disbelieved in earlier proceedings where both pre-arrest and post-arrest bails were granted to the petitioner," it said. It said the reliance placed by the LHC on previously discarded and delayed police statements amounted to a clear inconsistency in judicial appreciation of evidence. "These contradictory views of the courts below, especially in a case where the only allegation is of abetment and conspiracy, further reinforce that the matter warrants deeper scrutiny and falls squarely within the parameters of further inquiry," it said. According to the petition, in the order, LHC attempted to justify the delay in the statements of the witnesses by relying on an explanation furnished by the prosecutor, who claimed that the information regarding abatement was promptly communicated and brought on police record on May 4, 2023. "Shockingly, this explanation had never been offered before any judicial forum neither during the proceedings of pre-arrest or post-arrest bails before the learned ATCs, nor during the remand hearings, nor even before the LHC during the remand hearing or the Supreme Court in earlier stages. "This new explanation appears for the first time in the impugned order, without any evidentiary foundation or prosecutorial assertion to support it. "The reliance placed on such a retrospective and unsubstantiated statement of the prosecutor constitutes a manifest error on the part of the learned division bench," it added. It said the LHC is inadvertently filling the lacunae left by the prosecutiona task clearly outside the scope of judicial discretion in bail matters and undermines the fairness of the reasoning applied in the impugned order. The petition stated that Imran Khan has been maliciously implicated in the instant case as part of a calculated and politically motivated design to prolong his incarceration and subject him to harassment, and tarnish his public image. It said the circumstances demonstrate that the petitioner's arrest was never genuinely required in the cases pertaining to May 9. This was evident from the police's conspicuous inaction over a prolonged period of fourteen months in implicating and arresting the Petitioner in this case. The petition said the police knew the whereabouts of the petitionersAdiala Jailbut made no meaningful attempt to effect his arrest. "This lack of urgency or interest on the part of the investigating agency strongly supports the inference that the arrest was not necessitated by the merits of the case, but was rather a tool of oppression, thereby further justifying the grant of post-arrest bail" The petition said Imran Khan was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail on the well-established principle of consistency, as affirmed through various judgments of the apex court. "A critical and directly relevant bail order passed in favour of a co-accused, Mr. Ejaz Chaudhary, by [the SC] on May 2, 2025, during the pendency of the present bail matter before the [LHC], appears to have escaped the attention of the learned division bench. "The said order was rendered by a three-member bench headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, wherein post-arrest bail was granted to Mr Ejaz Chaudhary despite allegations of conspiracy concerning the events of 9th May. "In para 5 of the said judgment, this [SC] expressed concern over the prosecution's failure to justify the delay in recording the supplementary statement of the complainant "Further, in para 6, it was held that on a tentative assessment of the record, the case against the co-accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC 1898." The petition highlighted that the ATC-III in Lahore confirmed Imran's pre-arrest bail in two May 9 cases through a detailed order on March 1, 2024, followed by the grant of post-arrest bail in four additional cases on November 8, 204. "These orders, based on similar allegations and the same prosecutorial evidence, have not been set aside by any Superior Court and have attained finality." It said Imran Khan has already been granted bail in 21 criminal cases arising out of the May 9 incidents, all of which relied on substantially identical evidence. "These consistent judicial findings strongly support his entitlement to post-arrest bail on the ground of parity and further inquiry, particularly in the face of a case fabricated at the behest of political adversaries. "Furthermore, both [the LHC] and the [ATCs] at Lahore and Rawalpindi have, in multiple proceedings, recorded observations that cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's narrative," it said.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
LHC rules in favour of daughter's share in estate of deceased father
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that it is a settled principle that when fraud is alleged, limitation begins to run from the date of knowledge. The court also observed that immovable property can be gifted orally, but the donee must establish three ingredients beyond doubt, declaration of gift by the donor, acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession. The court passed this order in a petition of Mst Rashidaan Bibi who approached the court against the decision of an appellate court which set aside the decision of the trial court by virtue of which the petitioner seeking cancellation of Tamleek Mutation was decreed in favour of her brother Abdul Sattar. The court observed that the appellate court erred in reversing these findings without any valid legal justification. The court; therefore, set aside the judgement and the decree passed by the appellate court and restored decision of the trial court. The court observed that the trial court has rightly relied upon the judgment rendered by this court, wherein it was held that a gift transaction, particularly one aimed at excluding legal heirs, must be proved with strict compliance of the legal requirements and any deviation renders the gift void. In the present case, all three essential ingredients are lacking in evidence, and the surrounding circumstances strongly suggest that the alleged Tamleek was nothing more than a colourable device to deprive lawful heirs of their inheritance, the court added. The trial court rightly held while deciding the issue that the suit was within time, as the petitioner gained knowledge of the fraudulent Tamleek after the death of her father Ashraf Ali, which finding was upheld by the appellate court, the court added. The record shows that the petitioner pleaded specific facts regarding fraud, collusion with the revenue staff, the physical incapacity of the donor, and forged thumb impressions, the court noted. The petitioner also appeared and reaffirmed these facts on oath, thereby discharging the initial burden. It was then for the donee to prove the genuineness of the Tamleek, which he failed to do, the court observed. The court observed that the alleged justification for disinheriting the real daughters on the ground of love and affection is seriously questionable. Even if the purported intention behind the Tamleek was claimed to be pious, it is inconceivable how depriving daughters of their Shariah-mandated inheritance could be treated as an act of virtue, the court added. 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, the court concluded. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
