LHC removes Rs700,000 condition for mother seeking custody of one-year-old son

The Lahore High Court has set aside a Rs700,000 surety requirement and a territorial restriction imposed on a mother seeking the return of her one-year-old son, holding that interim proceedings under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be turned into a mechanism for imposing long-term custody conditions.

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has set aside a Rs700,000 surety requirement and a territorial restriction imposed on a mother seeking the return of her one-year-old son, holding that interim proceedings under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code should not be turned into a mechanism for imposing long-term custody conditions.

The case involved Misbah Bibi, who had approached the court seeking the recovery of her infant son, Kakshan. During the proceedings, the child’s custody was ordered to be given to his mother, but the relief was made conditional on her furnishing a Rs700,000 surety and remaining within the territorial limits of Sheikhupura.

The conditions became the central issue before the Lahore High Court.

Justice Asad Ali Bajwa, in a judgment issued on August 31, 2026, examined the scope of Section 491 Cr.P.C. and the limits of a court’s authority while dealing with an application concerning the recovery of a child.

The court observed that proceedings under Section 491 are intended to provide immediate relief in cases involving unlawful detention. They are not designed to replace the proceedings of a Guardian Court, where questions concerning long-term custody, guardianship and competing claims between parents can be properly examined.

The judgment therefore rejected the approach of attaching financial and territorial conditions to the mother’s interim custody of the child.

The court noted that if the father had concerns about the child being taken away or removed from the jurisdiction, he could pursue the appropriate remedy before the competent Guardian Court.

The ruling also brings the issue of access to justice into focus. A requirement to provide a substantial financial surety can become a serious obstacle for a parent who does not have the financial means to arrange such an amount.

In Misbah Bibi’s case, the court ultimately removed the Rs700,000 bond condition as well as the restriction preventing her from leaving Sheikhupura.

The decision means that she can return to Hafizabad with her young son, where her parents and family support are available.

The case also highlights the distinction between temporary relief and final custody proceedings. While an emergency application may enable a court to restore a child to a person entitled to immediate relief, permanent questions concerning custody and guardianship must be decided through the appropriate legal process.

The ruling has significance beyond the individual dispute because it addresses how procedural safeguards should be used in family-related cases. Conditions intended to prevent future disputes, the judgment suggests, should not effectively defeat the immediate relief being sought.

For parents involved in custody disputes, the decision reinforces the importance of approaching the appropriate forum for long-term custody matters while ensuring that emergency proceedings remain focused on the immediate protection and welfare of the child.

The case was registered as W.P. No. 46971 of 2026, Mst. Misbah Bibi vs Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. Muhammad Usama, Advocate, represented the petitioner.

The judgment is likely to attract attention among family-law practitioners because of its discussion of Section 491 proceedings and the limits of imposing conditions in cases involving the temporary custody of minors.