2006 PLP 2215 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.

With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is treated as "Pacca case".

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner being father filed an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of two minors; one male and female, against respondent No.1, who is the mother of the minors. An application under section 12 for interim custody was also filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by the learned Guardian Judge vide order, dated 2-9-2004 and it was observed that on the last Saturday of the month at 7-00 p.m. the minors will be handed over to the petitioner and shall be returned at 7-00 p.m. on the next day. In this regard a security of Rs.50,000 was also called upon to be furnished with the learned Guardian Judge. The security in the said terms statedly has been provided. The order was, however, assailed by the respondent through an appeal, which has been allowed by the learned A.D.J. vide order, dated 8-11-2004 and had only permitted meeting of the petitioner with his minor children in the Court. This order is being assailed through the instant constitutional petition.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being father cannot be deprived of the facility to see his children, even for one day in one month. It would not be good for the minors that they are not permitted to live with their father even for a day in a month, therefore, the order passed by the learned Guardian Judge was absolutely against the welfare of the children.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that petitioner had filed the main Guardian petition as a counter-blast to the decree of maintenance passed against him. Despite there being a decree the petitioner is not making payment of any maintenance allowance and is only litigating on the sidelines. It is further added that petitioner is not interested in the welfare of the minor children.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The paramount consideration in such like cases is the welfare of the minor. Technicalities are not to come in the way of decision in a case which relates to the welfare of minor. The minors are statedly aged about 13/14 years. They undoubtedly need care of the father as well, therefore, the arrangement made by the learned Guardian Judge of their meeting with their father once a month was a fair arrangement and also depicted welfare of the minors. Totally depriving the minors from their association with father would not bring any healthy state of mind. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Order passed by the learned A.D.J., dated 8-11-2004 is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. As a result thereof the order passed by the learned Guardian Judge, dated 2-9-2004 shall hold the field. H.B.T./J-17/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.