1989 PLP 937 (MLD)

Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khakwani for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1988. Through this Constitutional petition Mst. Faiz Elahi wants this Court to declare the order dated 20‑7‑1987 passed by District Judge, Bahawalnagar to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that Karam Khan respondent/father filed application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act against Mst. Faiz Elahi/mother in the Court of learned Family Judge, Chishtian, for the custody of his minor daughter Mst, Riaz Mai alias Noor Elahi (aged 8 yearud. The suit was resisted. The trial Court framed following issues:‑ (1) Whether it is in the Welfare of the minor to return the custody of the minor to the petitioner ? OPA. (2) Relief.

3. Karam Khan produced Wilayat Shah PW.1 and Hoot PW.2. He also appeared as PW.3. In rebuttal, Mst. Faiz Elahi produced Muhammad Bakhsh DWA. She also appeared as DW.2. The trial Court dismissed the application on 27‑1‑1987. Feeling aggrieved thereby Karam Khan respondent filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar, who accepting the appeal, set aside the order of the Judge Family Court and directed the petitioner/mother to hand over the custody of the minor to the respondent/father. Hence this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the paramount consideration being the welfare of the minor, the mother/petitioner could not be deprived of her custody merely because she had contracted second marriage with a person not related to the minor. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the appellate Court.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to pursuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned District Judge has devotedly considered the question of the welfare of the minor in accordance with the guide‑lines given by the superior Courts; that he has given more than one reasons in support of his conclusion that the welfare of the minor lies in his living with the father/respondent and that he has not deprived the mother of the custody of the minor on the sole ground of her contracting marriage with a stranger. After applying his conscious mind to the relevant evidence and circumstances appearing in the case, the, learned District Judge has given sound and cogent reasons to support the impugned order. He has not flouted the provisions of relevant law. He has followed the relevant case law laid down by the superior Courts.

6. For what has been said above, I do not see any justification to interfere with the well‑reasoned judgment of the learned appellate Court, in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./F‑107/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.