Justice Shireen Imran of the Lahore High Court dismissed a father's constitutional petition seeking custody of his two minor children, upholding the mother as custodian and maintenance of Rs35,000 per month per child: a father's maintenance duty cannot be dodged by citing financial difficulty, and his preferential right to custody is subject to the child's welfare.

A father asked the Lahore High Court to hand him custody of his two minor children and, in the same breath, to cut the maintenance he pays them. He got neither. In a ruling reported on 20 October 2026, Justice Shireen Imran dismissed his constitutional petition, upholding the family court and the appellate court: the children stay with their mother, and maintenance stands at Rs35,000 per month per child.

A note on sources: the details below are from Dawn's 20 October 2026 report. At the time of writing, the judgment text could not be located on the Lahore High Court's official portal and no law-report citation (PLD, SCMR or YLR) exists yet; the writ petition number above is as confirmed by the reviewing advocate. Where a detail is not published, we say so rather than fill it in.

Case reference: Kashif Mehmood versus Sadia Fida and others, Writ Petition No. 49905/2026, Lahore High Court — bench: Justice Shireen Imran; reported 20 October 2026 (Dawn).

The case: two suits, one family

The father first filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of his two children. The mother responded with her own suit for maintenance and regularisation of custody, and both were heard together.

The family court dismissed the father's plea, left the children with their mother (with visitation rights for him), and awarded Rs50,000 per month per child with a 10 per cent annual increase, besides Rs25,000 per month for the iddat period. In appeal, an additional district and sessions judge reduced maintenance to Rs35,000 per month per child but otherwise maintained the decree. The father's constitutional petition to the High Court was dismissed.

What the court decided

Justice Shireen Imran's conclusions are straightforward:

Maintenance is a duty, not a negotiation. The judge held that a father's obligation to maintain his minor children is a legal duty that cannot be avoided merely by citing financial difficulty. The petitioner said his finances had been ignored; the court answered that the appellate court had already weighed his other responsibilities when it reduced the award, and Rs35,000 could not be called arbitrary or excessive.

A father's right to custody is not absolute. Citing recent Supreme Court judgments, the judge reiterated that a father's preferential right to custody is subject to one supreme test: the welfare of the child. The children had been living with their mother, and the petitioner had failed to show that custody with her would harm them.

The child must be genuinely heard. The lower courts had interviewed the children, who wished to stay with their mother. The judge stressed that a child's voice must be genuinely heard — but listening to a child does not mean obeying the child. The preference is one factor in assessing welfare, not a deciding vote.

A writ petition is not a retrial. Constitutional jurisdiction is not a forum for the reappraisal of evidence: the judge declined to second-guess two lower courts' factual findings and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

The lessons in three lines

A fact-specific ruling, but it confirms three principles. Welfare is the touchstone in custody under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act: a father seeking to overturn the mother's custody must prove his case on the child's welfare; fatherhood alone does not do it. Maintenance follows means, not words: the father did win a reduction — Rs50,000 to Rs35,000 — but at the appeal stage, where evidence was still in play, and on documented financial facts, not bare hardship claims. Trial is where these cases are decided: constitutional jurisdiction does not reappraise evidence, so the writ petition added nothing.

Your practical checklist

  • If you are a mother resisting a custody petition: document daily care — school records, medical visits, routines. Never coach the child before an interview; courts see through it. Keep the father's visitation running smoothly unless a court orders otherwise.
  • If you are a father seeking custody: lead with evidence — proof that the current arrangement harms the child or that you can offer a clearly better home. Vague claims about your rights will not overturn concurrent findings.
  • If you are a father paying maintenance: pay regularly and keep proof. If your income has genuinely changed, move the court for modification with documents — a hardship plea without evidence fails, as this case shows.
  • If you are a mother claiming maintenance: ask for a structured decree with a built-in annual increase (here 10 per cent) so inflation does not eat the children's dues. Move for execution promptly if payments stop.
  • At trial, bring everything. The father's real win — a reduction from Rs50,000 to Rs35,000 — happened at appeal, where facts were still arguable. A constitutional petition is not a retrial.

Frequently asked questions

Can a father take custody of children settled with their mother?

He can ask the guardian court, but the court decides on the minor's welfare, not on the father's right alone. In the 20 October 2026 ruling, the Lahore High Court kept the children with their mother: they were living well with her, had been interviewed by the lower courts, wished to stay with her, and the father could not show harm.

Can a father avoid paying child maintenance by saying he cannot afford it?

No — not by that alone. The Lahore High Court held that a father's maintenance duty cannot be avoided merely by citing financial difficulty. Courts do consider his other responsibilities — here the appellate court had already reduced the award from Rs50,000 to Rs35,000 per month per child after weighing them.

Will the court ask the children where they want to live?

Courts interview children of sufficient age, but listening to a child does not mean obeying the child. A child's voice must be genuinely heard — it is one important factor in deciding welfare, not a deciding vote.

Can the High Court overturn family court findings on custody?

Constitutional petitions are not a fresh appeal. The High Court does not reappraise evidence; it interferes only for a legal error or jurisdictional flaw. Where two lower courts agree on the facts and there is no such error, the petition is dismissed — as happened here.

Related guides

Need guidance on your situation? Custody and maintenance cases are won on evidence put in early — school records, income proof, medical files. Contact us to book a confidential consultation.

Common questions

He can ask the guardian court, but the court decides on the minor's welfare, not on the father's right alone. In the 20 October 2026 ruling, the Lahore High Court refused to disturb custody with the mother where both children were living well with her, had been interviewed by the lower courts, and had expressed a wish to stay with her. The father could not show that custody with the mother would harm the children.

No — not by that alone. The Lahore High Court held that a father's obligation to maintain his minor children is a legal duty that cannot be avoided merely by citing financial difficulty. Courts fix maintenance on the father's financial capacity, and they do consider his other responsibilities; here the appellate court had already reduced the award from Rs50,000 to Rs35,000 per month per child after weighing them.

Courts do interview children of sufficient age and understanding, but listening to a child does not mean obeying the child. In this case the judge reiterated that a child's voice must be genuinely heard — it is one important factor in deciding welfare, not a deciding vote.

Constitutional petitions before the High Court are not a fresh appeal. The High Court does not reappraise evidence; it interferes only where there is a legal error or jurisdictional flaw. Where two lower courts agree on the facts and there is no such error, the petition is dismissed — as happened here.

Related guides

Need guidance on your matter? Book a Consultation

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice for your specific matter. Online contact does not create an advocate–client relationship.