The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has laid down clear guidelines regarding international custody disputes and the application of international law. The court issued a judgment in an international child-custody case, setting aside the Sindh High Court's order of March 16, 2026, and laid down clear guidelines concerning international custody disputes and the application of international law. A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the case. The detailed judgment was authored by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and was delivered on an appeal filed by Muhammad Faraz Sheikh.

The court held that in disputes between parents holding citizenship of different countries, courts must consider the child's country of habitual residence, the jurisdiction of the foreign court, and the legal validity of its decision. If a child has been unlawfully removed from or retained outside the country of habitual residence, the child should be returned to that country unless the child has become permanently settled in the new environment, says the judgment.

The court clarified that an order for the temporary or immediate return of a child does not determine the ultimate or permanent right to custody. It may be recalled that a court in North Carolina, United States, on June 9, 2023, awarded custody of a minor US citizen child to the father, who was the petitioner. In light of that decision, the Guardian Court in Karachi ordered on January 18, 2024, that the child be handed over to the father, and the order was fully implemented.

The constitutional court held that the Guardian Court's decision had attained finality. Therefore, the Sindh High Court was not legally justified in recalling the earlier order and initiating contempt proceedings against the father. The court further clarified that under the 1980 Hague Convention, the wrongful removal or retention of a child from the state in which the child is habitually resident constitutes a violation of custody rights.

Meanwhile, the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that civil and criminal proceedings concerning the same matter should not proceed simultaneously in a manner that could result in conflicting decisions. It held that no criminal proceedings can be taken against the petitioners before the disputed documents have been verified by the civil court. Justice Ali Baqar Najafi authored the detailed judgment in a case involving a former District Education Officer (EDO) of Bannu and others.