LHC says parents cannot waive a minor’s future rights through compromise

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that parents cannot give up or extinguish a minor child’s future rights, including maintenance and inheritance, through a private settlement or compromise placed before a family court.

Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani issued the ruling while deciding a petition filed by Waleed Arshad, who had challenged decisions of lower courts concerning maintenance and delivery expenses of a minor child. Although the petitioner later withdrew the case after reaching a compromise with the other side before a family court, the judge examined the terms of that settlement and found that they affected the child’s fundamental rights.

According to the ruling, the compromise stated that the mother would not seek future maintenance for the child and that the minor would not claim any share in the father’s inheritance. Justice Kayani held that such conditions had no legal validity, observing that a minor is under legal disability and therefore entitled to special protection by the courts.

The judge said that in family matters involving children, the child’s welfare is the overriding consideration. In the ruling, he held that “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.”

Justice Kayani observed that under Islamic law, the father’s duty to maintain a minor child is continuing in nature and carries legal, moral and religious force. He explained that the right belongs to the child rather than the mother, meaning that a mother acting as guardian or custodian cannot permanently waive or surrender the child’s future maintenance entitlement.

On inheritance, the judge ruled that under Muslim law, succession arises only after the death of the estate owner, and no heir acquires a vested right during that person’s lifetime. He said an expected future inheritance cannot be surrendered beforehand and that compulsory rules of succession cannot be set aside through private arrangements.

The ruling also said that agreements of this nature are incompatible with constitutional protections linked to the dignity, welfare and rights of children. Justice Kayani further observed that family courts do more than merely record compromises when minors are involved.

“They have a duty to independently examine whether a settlement protects the child’s welfare and complies with the law,” he stated.

The judge laid down guidelines for family courts, directing them not to approve settlements affecting minors solely because the parents have consented. He said courts must independently assess whether such arrangements serve the child’s best interests and must record reasons before approving any compromise.

He further directed that no settlement should be accepted if it permanently waives, limits or extinguishes a minor’s future right to maintenance or inheritance. Any such clause, he ruled, would be void and would not bar future claims made by or on behalf of the child.

Justice Kayani instructed civil courts, family courts, guardian courts and appellate forums to follow these principles when dealing with settlements involving minors. The petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn, with these directions issued by the court.