LHC Ruled: Parents Cannot Take Away Their Child’s Legal Rights

By Muhammad Imran, Staff Member, SAHSOL-LUMS and Bushra Zeb Khan, Lecturer, Department of Law, Malakan University and Asma Rahmat, Final Year Law Student, SLC

Mr. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 54280 of 2022, delivered an important judgment reaffirming the principle that the rights of a minor child cannot be waived, reduced, surrendered, or compromised by either parent through a private agreement, settlement, or even a compromise recorded before a court of law. The Court emphasized that a child’s rights are independent legal rights vested in the child by operation of law and are not subject to negotiation between parents. Consequently, parents do not possess the legal authority to bargain away, relinquish, or extinguish rights that belong exclusively to their child.

The central issue before the Court was whether parents could, through mutual consent or a privately negotiated settlement, validly waive the future rights of their minor child, particularly the rights of maintenance and inheritance. Answering this question in the negative, the Court held that a minor is an independent holder of legal rights and is not merely an extension of either parent. Therefore, rights conferred upon a child by law cannot be treated as personal assets of the parents capable of being surrendered as part of a settlement of their own disputes. The Court observed that the legal interests of a child stand on a distinct footing and must remain insulated from compromises motivated by the convenience or preferences of the parents.

The judgment is firmly rooted in the well-established principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in all matters affecting minors. Recognizing the legal vulnerability and incapacity of children, the Court reiterated that the law places them under special protection and imposes a continuing duty upon courts to safeguard their welfare and interests. Accordingly, parental consent alone cannot validate an agreement that is detrimental to a child or that seeks to deprive the child of rights guaranteed by law. In the case before it, the Court refused to recognize a compromise under which the mother had purportedly relinquished the minor child’s future rights of maintenance and inheritance, holding that such rights could not be waived on the child’s behalf.

Regarding maintenance, the Court clarified that the right belongs to the child, not the custodial parent. Although a mother or guardian may institute proceedings for maintenance on behalf of a minor, such a person merely acts in a representative capacity and does not acquire the right itself. Consequently, neither parent has the authority to permanently waive or surrender a child’s future entitlement to maintenance. The Court reaffirmed that maintenance is a continuing legal obligation owed for the benefit and welfare of the child and that any agreement seeking to extinguish this obligation is void and unenforceable.

The Court was equally emphatic in protecting the child’s future inheritance rights. It observed that under Muslim law, inheritance rights arise only upon the death of the owner of the estate and are governed by mandatory principles that cannot be altered through private agreements. Since inheritance is regulated by operation of law, neither parent can contractually exclude a child from succession or relinquish the child’s future entitlement in advance. The Court held that an expectation of inheritance cannot be surrendered before it accrues and that any arrangement purporting to deprive a child of future inheritance rights is legally ineffective and without binding force.

A particularly noteworthy aspect of the judgment is its integration of constitutional principles with Islamic jurisprudence and family law. The Court relied upon Articles 9, 14, 25(3), and 35 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to emphasize the State’s obligation to protect the dignity, welfare, and development of children. At the same time, reference was made to Articles 2-A and 227 of the Constitution, which require that laws and legal proceedings remain consistent with the Injunctions of Islam. Through this approach, the Court demonstrated that the rights of maintenance and inheritance are not merely statutory entitlements but are also deeply embedded within the constitutional and Islamic legal framework. Any agreement aimed at permanently depriving a child of such rights was therefore found to be inconsistent with both constitutional guarantees and Islamic principles.

The judgment also provides valuable guidance regarding the role of Family Courts. The Court rejected the notion that judicial approval can cure an otherwise unlawful agreement and stressed that Family Courts are not mere recording forums for settlements reached between parties. Whenever the rights of a minor are affected, courts are required to independently examine the legality, fairness, and welfare implications of the proposed arrangement. Judicial endorsement cannot transform an unlawful stipulation into a lawful one, nor can parental consent validate a compromise that undermines the interests of a child. In this respect, the judgment significantly strengthens judicial oversight in family disputes involving minors and reinforces the protective role of the courts.

Overall, the decision constitutes an important contribution to the development of child-rights jurisprudence in Pakistan. It unequivocally affirms that the rights of children are non-negotiable and cannot be compromised by parental agreement, regardless of the circumstances in which such an agreement is reached. The judgment not only strengthens the legal protection afforded to minors but also clarifies the duty of Family Courts to act as guardians of children’s welfare rather than passive endorsers of private settlements. As a result, it is likely to serve as a persuasive precedent in future cases involving maintenance, inheritance, custody arrangements, and other matters affecting the rights and welfare of children. Above all, the judgment reinforces a fundamental legal principle: while parents may make decisions concerning the upbringing and care of their children, they cannot lawfully surrender, diminish, or take away rights that belong to the child under the law.