LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has dismissed a petition filed by a man challenging concurrent findings of two lower courts that denied him custody of his two minor children and fixed maintenance for them.
Justice Shireen Imran rejected the petition filed by Kashif Mehmood against Sadia Fida and the minors, upholding judgments of a family court and an additional district and sessions judge, Lahore.
The father had filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of his children.
The mother then sued for maintenance and regularisation of custody and both matters were heard together.
High court says maintenance can’t be avoided by citing father’s financial constraints
The family court dismissed the father’s plea, left the children with their mother, subject to his visitation rights and awarded Rs50,000 per month to each child with a 10pc annual increase, besides Rs25,000 per month for the Iddat period.
In the appeal, the maintenance was reduced to Rs35,000 per month per child while the rest of the decree was maintained.
The petitioner contended that maintenance was fixed without proper regard to his finances and obligations towards other family members. He stated that the courts had not properly appreciated the evidence on the children’s welfare.
Justice Shireen held that a father’s obligation to maintain his children is a legal duty that cannot be avoided by merely citing financial difficulty.
She observed that the appellate court had already considered the petitioner’s other family responsibilities in reducing the amount and that the maintenance award could not be called arbitrary or excessive.
On the question of custody, the judge noted that both children had been living with their mother who looked after their upbringing. She observed that the children, who were interviewed by the lower courts, expressed a wish to stay with their mother.
Citing recent Supreme Court judgments, Justice Shireen reiterated that a father’s preferential right to custody is not absolute and is subject to the child’s welfare.
She said a child’s voice must be genuinely heard, though listening to a child “does not mean obeying” the child.
The petitioner, the judge held, had failed to show that custody with the mother would harm the children.
Observing that constitutional jurisdiction is not a forum for reappraisal of evidence, the judge dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
Published in Dawn, October 20th, 2026
