The Peshawar High Court has ruled that a mother’s second marriage alone cannot justify denying her custody of her child. The court placed the minor’s welfare above either parent’s competing claims.
Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar issued the eight-page order while disposing of a Kohat resident’s revision petition. The single-member bench declined his request for custody of his son but upheld visitation rights.
The father’s counsel argued that remarriage had ended the mother’s entitlement to custody.
“This contention, however, cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition. The mere fact that a mother has contracted a second marriage does not, by itself, furnish a conclusive ground for depriving her of custody,” the bench ruled.
Read More: Court Puts Contested K-Electric Tariff Decisions on Hold
The court said judges must objectively assess each child’s circumstances, emotional attachments, settled environment, educational needs and proposed custodial arrangements.
“The ultimate object is not to vindicate the legal entitlement of one parent at the expense of the other, but to ensure an arrangement most conducive to the minor’s physical, emotional, psychological, moral and educational development,” it observed.
The couple’s marriage ended in 2018 following matrimonial discord. Their son remained with his mother, who remarried in 2024. He subsequently began living with his maternal grandfather in Shakardara, Kohat.
The father sought custody through a family court, citing the child’s education, health and upbringing. On October 16, 2025, the trial court partially allowed his petition, granting him custody while preserving the mother’s visitation rights.
The mother and other respondents appealed. On March 18, 2026, Kohat’s additional district judge overturned that decision and dismissed the father’s custody application.
The appellate court retained his visitation rights, requiring advance notice to the mother and meetings at a mutually convenient, agreed location.
The high court noted that the boy, approximately nine to 10, had never spent even one day in his father’s custody. Consequently, the father lacked a sustained relationship with him through daily care.
Both parents had remarried and lived with their respective spouses. The boy already attended school and remained within his maternal family environment during important formative years.
The bench found insufficient justification for uprooting him. It warned that an abrupt transfer could disrupt his emotional security and established routine.
Read More: Meesha Shafi Ordered to Pay Rs5 Million in Damages as Court Sides with Ali Zafar
The existing arrangement will continue unless a competent court orders otherwise in accordance with the law and the child’s welfare.
The family court in Lachi, Kohat, will arrange initial father-son meetings on its premises through a definite, workable schedule. These meetings should build familiarity without undermining the child’s emotional security.
Both parties may jointly propose regular meetings and school-vacation visits.
Separately, Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, directs courts to consider a minor’s welfare when appointing guardians. Relevant factors include the proposed guardian’s capacity and existing relationship with the child. Courts may also consider an older child’s intelligent preference.
