1989 PLP 3962 (MLD)

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15‑1‑1989 passed by the Guardian Judge/Duty/Senior Civil Judge, Multan and the order dated 21‑3‑1989 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Multan.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the wife of Sh. Allah Rakha, respondent. Out of the wedlock a child named Unus Umer was born who is now aged about 2‑1/2 years. The petitioner filed a petition (Crl. Misc No. 266 H/8.) and obtained the custody of the minor on the basis of order dated 17‑11 1987, passed by my learned brother Raja Afrasiab Khan, J. The learned Judge was pleased to direct that the minor shall be made available once a week in the office of the learned counsel of the petitioner from 4.00 plm. to 6.00 p.m. so as to enable the father or any other dose relative to meet the child. It was further ordered that the said arrangement would continue till the guardianship case is finally decided by the trial Court. The petitioner filed an application for being appointed as the guardian of the minor in the Court of the Guardian Judge, Multan on 21‑2‑1988. Respondent No. 2 also filed an application for the custody of the minor on 21‑8‑1988. Both the applications were consolidated. Respondent No. 2 also filed an application under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the interim custody of the minor. On which the trial Court was pleased to direct that the minor be produced in the office of the learned counsel for the petitioner as ordered by the Lahore High Court in the habeas corpus petition. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide his judgment dated 21‑3‑1989.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was living with her brother named Waqas Ahmad who was transferred to Lahore on 24‑4‑1988, and the petitioner had to go with her. Hence it is not possible for her to produce the minor in accordance with the directions of the Guardian Judge and the High Court. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent urged that the petitioner was bound to comply with the orders passed by the High Court and the Guardian Judge. She has two brothers named Naeem Ahmad and Nasim Ahmad, who are residing at Multan and the petitioner is also residing with them but falsely claims to have gone to Lahore.

4. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. It appears that the petitioner was allowed the custody of the. minor in the habeas corpus petition with the clear direction that she shall produce the minor in the office of her counsel to enable the father who is resident of Multan to see him. The said order holds the field and has to be complied with by the petitioner. She is fortunate that the High Court in its discretion did not choose to take action for contempt against her for having violated the order dated 17‑11‑1987. She was not justified to remove the minor from the jurisdiction of the Court without seeking its permission. At any rate if she has chosen to move to Lahore, she cannot unilaterally bail herself out of the operation of the order dated 17‑11‑1987, passed by the High Court and the order dated 15‑1‑1989 passed by the learned Guardian Judge/Duty/Senior Civil Judge. It is not denied that two of the brothers of the petitioner namely Naeem Ahmad and Nasim Ahmad are Govt. servants and residing at Multan. There is nothing to show that relations of the petitioner with her said brothers are strained. She can conveniently stay with the said real brothers and produce the minor in the office of the learned counsel to enable the father to meet him. It is also significant to mention that there are as many as 7 cases pending between the parties in the Courts at Multan. Hence the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 seems to have substance that the petitioner is actually residing at Multan and is wrongly claiming to have gone to Lahore. Whatever the actual state of affairs, as observed above, the petitioner is bound to comply with the orders passed by the High Court and the Guardian Judge in the matter of production of the minor in the office of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. In this view of the matter this writ petition fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs,

6. The learned counsel for the parties pointed out that while dismissing the application for action for contempt on 18‑9‑1988 the High Court had directed the Guardian Judge to decide the case by 20‑11‑1988. However, the main case has not been decided so far. Let a notice be issued to the Guardian Judge/Senior Civil Judge, Multan to explain as to why the direction contained in the order dated 18 9‑1988 was not complied with. The office is directed to prepare a separate file of the Crl. Orgl. The same should be refixed immediately after the receipt of the reply by the learned Senior Civil Judge. The propriety of taking further action shall be considered on the receipt of the reply by the learned Senior Civil Judge. He is directed to submit reply within a fortnight of the receipt of this order. M.A.K/R‑174/1 Petition dismissed.