1994 PLP 309 (CLC)

Asma Jahangir for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1993. This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 11‑11‑1992 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Lahore. Facts briefly for the disposal of the petition are that the petitioner entered into a marriage contract with respondent No.l and out of this wedlock three children were born. He divorced the respondent in August, 1991 (Annexure "A"). Subsequently on 22‑3‑1992 he filed an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the children (Annexure "C"). Alongwith this application he filed a petition under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act for interim relief. The learned Guardian Judge, Lahore, through his order dated 29‑7‑1992 (Annexure "G") partly accepted the application in the following terms:‑‑ (i) The respondent shall be bound to produce the minors in Court on every date of hearing for meeting with the petitioner. (ii) The respondents shall not remove the minors from the jurisdiction of this Court till the disposal of the main petition. . (iii) The respondents shall deliver the temporary custody of the minor to the petitioner in Court after every fortnight on Thursday and shall. receive the custody of the minors in Court on Saturday. The respondent feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal and the learned Addl. District Judge through the impugned order dated 11‑11‑1992 (Annexure "J") deleted the third term whereby an order was made for the delivery of the temporary custody of the minors to the petitioner every fortnight in the Court on Thursday for weekend. Hence this Constitutional petition. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect in the impugned order. No illegality whatsoever has been committed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, in deleting the third term. The matter is still pending and if this term/condition is allowed to be maintained, the minor children would simply be shuttling from one house to another without any peace of mind. In this manner their education would also hamper/suffer. They would never have a peace of mind. They would become simply a rolling stone shuttling between the petitioner and the respondent. I see no good reason to interfere in this interim order. I have also noted that in this case although the application for the custody was filed as far back as on 22‑3‑1992 but till today even the issues have not been framed. This, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has mainly been due to the application made by the petitioner on 26‑i1‑1992 under Order 6, rule 17, C.P.C. for the amendment of his application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. In this background the writ petition is dismissed with the direction to the learned Guardian Judge, Lahore, to expedite the matter pending before him. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. H.B.T./F‑107/L Petition dismissed.