The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that parents cannot surrender or extinguish the future rights of a minor child, including maintenance and inheritance, through private agreements or compromises before family courts.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani issued the ruling while deciding a petition filed by Waleed Arshad, which challenged lower court judgments regarding the maintenance and delivery expenses of a minor child.
The claimant had withdrawn the petition after reaching a compromise with the respondent before a family court.
However, the LHC judge examined the terms of the settlement and determined that they affected the fundamental rights of the minor.
Justice Kayani noted that under the compromise, the mother agreed she would not claim future maintenance for the child, and that the minor would not claim a share in the father’s inheritance.
The judge maintained that such conditions are legally invalid, observing that a minor is a person under legal disability and is placed under the special protection of courts. The judge remarked that the welfare of a minor is not merely one factor among many but is the paramount consideration in family matters.
“The rights of a child are independent rights and cannot be treated as negotiable claims capable of being bartered away by parents for the purposes of settlement of their personal disputes,” the judge held.
Justice Kayani observed that under Islamic law, the maintenance of a minor child is a continuing legal, moral and religious obligation of the father.
The judge explained that the right belongs to the child, not the mother. Therefore, a mother acting as guardian or custodian cannot permanently waive or surrender the child’s future maintenance rights.
Regarding inheritance, the judge ruled that under Muslim law, succession opens only after the death of the owner of the estate, and no heir obtains a vested right during the lifetime of the person. He said a mere expectation of inheritance cannot be surrendered in advance and mandatory rules of succession cannot be defeated through private arrangements.
The judge also held that such agreements are inconsistent with constitutional protections relating to the dignity welfare, and rights of children. He observed that family courts are not merely recording authorities when dealing with compromises involving minors.
“They have a duty to independently examine whether a settlement protects the child’s welfare and complies with the law,” he added.
Justice Kayani issued guidelines for family courts, directing them not to accept compromises affecting minors solely on the basis of parental consent. He said that courts must independently determine whether such arrangements serve the best interests of the child and record reasons before approving any settlement.
He also directed that no compromise should be accepted if it permanently waives, restricts or extinguishes a minor’s future right to maintenance or inheritance.
He further ruled that any such clause would be void and could not prevent future claims by or on behalf of the child.
Justice Kayani instructed civil courts, family courts, guardian courts and appellate forums to follow these principles while dealing with settlements involving minors. With these directions, the judge dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
