1994 PLP 1355 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 25 & 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Custody of minor‑‑‑Application for interim custody of ward‑‑‑Application for interim custody of minor child required urgent attention of Guardian Court‑‑‑Mother of female invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court for appropriate direction to respondent for producing the minor girl in High Court for handing her over to her‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Delay in deciding application for interim custody of minor would not be a valid ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in the case to bypass the proceedings already initiated in the Court of a Guardian Judge of competent jurisdiction‑‑‑Guardian Judge however, was expected to speed up trial of main case and also to finally decide application for interim custody of minor child quickly without loss of further time for undue delay in decision of cases causes frustration in the minds of litigants and also shake their confidence in the utility of judicial institutions‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. (b) Administration of justice‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Undue delay in decision of cases causes frustration in the minds of litigants and also shake their confidence in the utility of judicial institutions.‑‑‑[Delay]. Mian Sher Alam for Petitioner. Custody‑dispute of a female ward between her parents was already sub judice before a Guardian Judge at Kharian. Alongwith the main petition filed under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, a petition under section 12 of the Act for interim custody of the ward also awaited decision by the Guardian Judge. Since the petition for interim custody was not being adverted to speedily, the mother of the female ward was constrained to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court for an appropriate direction to the respondent for producing the minor girl in this Court for handing her over to the petitioner Learned counsel was heard. I had not the complete record of the guardianship proceedings taken in the Guardian Court at Kharian before me. Therefore, I was unable to comment on the delayed decision of the petition filed under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act. If things as stated by the learned counsel were correct, petitioner may have a genuine grievance on question of delay in deciding the application for temporary custody. Obviously, the nature of the application under section 12 required urgent attention of the Guardian Court and delay should not be allowed to intervene for frustrating its urgency. It was a little astonishing that despite passage of considerable time, the Guardian Judge was unable to decide even the application for interim custody of the female ward. But the delay aside, it shall not be a valid ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in the case for bypassing the proceedings already initiated in the Court of a Guardian Judge of competent jurisdiction. Female was born on 5‑5‑1988. Her mother was ousted from the house of her father in October, 1990 and she was kept behind by her father. On 24‑3‑1991, petitioner instituted a petition under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for regaining the custody of female ward. This petition was filed against the paternal grandmother of the female child. On arrival of her father from abroad, this petition was withdrawn on 13‑10‑1991. It was soon followed by a second similar petition against him on 31‑10‑1991. It accompanied a petition under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act for an interim custody of the female child. 'From the statement made by the learned counsel, it was evident that the main case alongwith the petition for interim custody were yet in their initial stages. Writ Petition No. 400 of 1994 against an order of the Guardian Judge holding that jurisdiction for trial of the application under section 25 existed was dismissed by me on 1‑3‑1994. Female child is about six years of age. She was in the custody of her father. There was also a paternal grandmother in the house to look after her. She was living in the house of her paternal grand parents, eversince October, 1990. All this period, the petitioner was away from her. Therefore, in presence of proceedings already pending for deciding of a custody dispute of a female child between the parties, it shall not be an appropriate exercise of equitable jurisdiction to interfere for disturbing the present custody of the female child. That notwithstanding, Guardian Judge was expected to speed up the trial of the main case and also to finally decide the application for interim custody of the female child quickly without loss of further time. Undue delay in decision of civil cases causes frustration in the minds of the litigants and also shake their confidence in the utility of judicial institutions. For this reason, the Guardian Judge must accelerate the trial for reaching a final decision in it soon. With these observations, interference is declined and writ petition is dismissed in limine. AA/G‑208/L Petition dismissed.