2018 PLP 1793 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.

Precisely the facts of the case are that the respondent/grandmother filed a petition under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of her grandson, namely, Muhammad Qasim. The petitioner, who is real father of the minor, contested the petition by filing his written reply. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Guardian Judge framed necessary issues. Both the parties adduced their respective oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. The learned Guardian Judge, vide judgment dated 2.12.2016 dismissed the petition. The respondent was, however, allowed to meet the minor on 3rd Saturday of each month from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. in the visitation room of the Court. She was also held entitled to take the minor on 2nd day of Eidain and on his birthday at 10.00 a.m. and return him on the next day at 10.00 a.m. She was, however, directed to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lac) to the satisfaction of the said Court. It was directed that handing over and taking over of the minor will be supervised by a bailiff of the said Court. Against the said judgment the respondent/grandmother filed appeal, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 29.3.2017 with some modification. The concluding para 7 of the impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate forum is reproduced below:-- "In view of above said observations, appeal in hand is hereby dismissed to the extent of permanent custody and the impugned order dated 2.12.2016 is hereby modified to the extent of meeting schedule and the petitioner/instant appellant has been held entitled to get interim custody of the minor for 3rd Saturday from 10.00 a.m. to next Sunday 10.00 a.m. of each month and remaining schedule to the extent of Eidain as well as birthday subject to surety granted by learned Guardian Court/Trial Court as well as to the extent of permanent custody is up-held." The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the modification in the meeting schedule given in the impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate Court dated 29.3.2017 has filed the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgment to the extent of modification of schedule of meeting of the minor with the respondent is against the welfare of the minor; that respondent No.2 has no love and affection for the minor and she filed the custody petition just to create fuss in the life of the petitioner; that as both the parties are not on good terms after the death of mother of the minor, therefore, if the minor stays with the respondent overnight there is every likelihood that he would be poisoned by the respondent against his real father (the petitioner); and that handing over and taking over custody of the minor through bailiff will have an adverse psychological effect on the mind of the minor, therefore, the impugned judgment to the extent of modification of the schedule of meeting is liable to be set-aside.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is maternal grandmother of the minor and the learned lower appellate Court has not committed any illegality in modifying the schedule of meeting of the minor; that the respondent has a right to meet with the minor, who cannot be deprived of the love and affection of his maternal grandmother; that the schedule of meeting of the minor with the respondent given by the learned lower appellate Court in no way adversely affects the welfare of the minor; and that the instant petition has been filed just to delay the meeting of the minor with the respondent.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. Irrespective of the fact whether the application before the learned Guardian Judge is under section 12(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, for interim custody of the minor or under section 25 of the Act ibid for permanent custody, the only consideration which requires to be adhered to by the learned Guardian Judge is the welfare of the minor and nothing else. Admittedly, the respondent is the real maternal grandmother of the minor. Mother of the minor has passed away. In absence of the real mother maternal grandmother has the right to see and meet with the minor. Denial of such a legal right would tantamount to deprive the minor from the love and affection of his maternal grandmother and the family of his deceased mother, which is against the welfare of the minor for the reason that a minor needs love and affection of both of his paternal and maternal relations. He should not be deprived of love and affection of either of the two blood relations. The minor should have maximum interaction with his maternal relations as well even if his permanent custody is with the father, otherwise it may cause an estrangement in the mind of the child which may ultimately leave a vacuum in the development of his personality. In fact the father should not create undue hurdles in enabling the minor to develop a healthy relationship with his maternal side which can only be developed if he is allowed to spend a reasonable period of time with them.

7. The learned Appellate Court after taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the case has rightly chalked out the visitation schedule of the minor in the above terms which in my considered view is in the interest and welfare of the minor. The learned Appellate Court has already imposed a condition of submission of surety bonds by the respondent at the time of taking over custody of the minor in order to prevent the respondent from removing the minor from the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Guardian Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince this Court as to how the impugned schedule of meeting is likely to adversely affect the welfare of the minor. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.

7. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is dismissed. MQ/H-8/L Petition dismissed.