47. Orders appealable.

An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order made by the Court:--
(a) under section 7, appointing or declaring to appoint or, declare a guardian; or
(b) under section 9, sub-section (3), returning an application; or
(c) under section 25, making or refusing to make an order for the return of a ward to the custody and of his guardian; or
(d) under section 26, refusing leave for the removal of a ward from the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or imposing conditions with respect thereto; or
(e) under section 28 or section 29, refusing permission to a guardian to do an act referred to in the section; or
(f) under section 32 defining, restricting or extending the powers of a guardian; or
(g) under section 39 removing a guardian; or
(h) under section 42, refusing to discharge a guardian; or
(i) under section 43, regulating the conduct or proceedings of a guardian or settling a, matter in difference between joint guardians, or enforcing the order; or
(j) under section 44, imposing a penalty;
¹[Provided that, where the order from which an appeal is preferred is passed by an officer subordinate to a District Court, the appeal shall lie to the District Court.

Legal Amendments

1. Proviso added by Ordinance, XI of 1980, S. 2.

Court Decisions

Crucial point is whether District Court was competent to hear appeal against order of Family Court. Application for custody of minor filed u/S. 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 had been challenged on ground that application having been decided by Family Court in capacity of District Court, appeal against order of Family Court should have been field before High Court and not before District Court. Validity. Provisions of S. 14(1), West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had overriding effect over provisions of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Provisions of S. 47(1)© of Guardian and Ward Act, 1890, no doubt, had provided that appeal against order passed under S. 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 lay to High Court, but S. 14(l)of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 which started with words "notwithstanding anything provided in any other law for time being in force", had provided that Judgment and decree passed in Family Court, would be appealable to District Court if such Judgment and decree were not passed by District Judge or additional District Judge. Application under S. 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, having been decided by Civil Judge as Family Court not by District Judge or Addl. District Judge as Family Court appeal certainly would lie before District Court under S. 14(l)of Family Courts Act, 1964 which had overriding effect due to non obstante clause over provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. P.L.J.1999 Qta. 299 = PLD 1999 Qta. 29.
District Judge was not a Family Court competent to hear and adjudicate upon matter due to total lack of jurisdiction, therefore, irrespective of fact that impugned order was passed by District Judge, same was appealable under S. 14 of Family Courts Act 1964 and not under S. 47of Guardians and Wards Act 1890-Court of Civil Judge being Family Court would have jurisdiction in relation to guardianship matters and custody of children would be deemed to be principal Court of Civil jurisdiction of . District. PLD 2003 Quetta 44