Lahore: In a significant ruling for child rights and family law, the Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that parents cannot surrender, waive, or extinguish a minor child’s future rights through private agreements or compromises reached during family disputes.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani while deciding a petition filed by Waleed Arshad concerning maintenance and delivery expenses relating to a minor child. Although the parties subsequently reached a compromise and sought withdrawal of the petition, the court examined the terms of the settlement and found that certain provisions directly affected the rights of the child.
Under the compromise agreement, the mother had agreed not to claim future maintenance on behalf of the minor child, while the child was also deemed to have relinquished any future claim to the father’s inheritance. The court found these conditions to be legally unenforceable.
In his judgment, Justice Kayani emphasized that a child’s rights are independent legal rights and cannot be treated as bargaining tools in disputes between parents. The court observed that the welfare of a minor is not merely one consideration among many but the paramount consideration in family matters.
The court further noted that maintenance of a minor child under Islamic law is a continuing legal, moral, and religious obligation of the father. Since the right belongs to the child rather than the mother, a parent acting as guardian or custodian cannot permanently waive or surrender a child’s future entitlement to maintenance.
The judgment also addressed inheritance rights. The court explained that succession rights arise only after the death of the owner of an estate and that no heir acquires a vested right during the lifetime of another person. As a result, any attempt to relinquish future inheritance rights through a private settlement lacks legal effect.
Beyond the specific facts of the case, the court underscored the broader principle that children’s rights cannot be compromised through agreements reached by adults. Justice Kayani observed that such arrangements are inconsistent with constitutional protections relating to the welfare, dignity, and rights of children.
The ruling also clarifies the role of family courts when dealing with settlements involving minors. The court held that judges are not merely required to record compromises presented by parents. Instead, they have an independent responsibility to examine whether any proposed settlement protects the child’s welfare and complies with the law.
To strengthen these protections, the court directed family courts not to approve settlements affecting minors solely on the basis of parental consent. Courts must independently determine whether an arrangement serves the best interests of the child and record reasons before approving such agreements.
The judgment further makes clear that no compromise can permanently waive, restrict, or extinguish a minor’s future right to maintenance or inheritance. Any clause attempting to do so would be void and incapable of preventing future claims made by or on behalf of the child.
Justice Kayani also directed civil courts, family courts, guardian courts, and appellate forums to follow these principles when dealing with settlements involving children.
While dismissing the petition as withdrawn following the compromise between the parties, the court used the opportunity to provide broader guidance on the protection of children’s rights within Pakistan’s family justice system.
Why the Judgment Matters
The ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of child rights law that children’s rights are distinct from the interests and claims of their parents. While adults may settle disputes between themselves, they cannot negotiate away rights that legally belong to a child.
The judgment is particularly relevant in family disputes where settlements are often reached to conclude litigation. In such situations, the interests of children can sometimes be overlooked in favour of resolving disagreements between adults. By requiring courts to independently assess the impact of settlements on minors, the ruling strengthens safeguards designed to protect children from unintended or unfair consequences.
The decision also reflects the widely recognized principle of the “best interests of the child,” which forms a central part of international child rights standards, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. By emphasizing that maintenance and inheritance rights cannot be surrendered through parental agreements, the court has reaffirmed the special protection that the law affords to children.
Legal observers believe the judgment is likely to influence future family court proceedings involving maintenance, guardianship, inheritance, and other matters affecting children. More broadly, it sends a clear message that children’s rights are not negotiable and must remain protected regardless of the outcome of disputes between adults.
