SHARIFAN BIBI Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALPUR

Through this Constitutional Petition Mst. Sharifan Bibi petitioner wants this Court to declare the order dated 30‑9‑1987 of Guardian Judge, Bahawalnagar, respondent No.2 and order dated 6‑1‑1988 of the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar. respondent No.l, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading to this petition briefly are that on 16‑9‑1982 Riazul Haq, respondent No.3 filed application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of his sons namely Ajmal‑ul- Haq, aged 9 years and Tahir Javed, aged 7 years against Mst. Sharifan Bibi/mother/petitioner before learned Guardian Judge, Bahawalnagar. The application was resisted whereon 3 issues were framed. The parties led evidence. The learned Guardian Judge allowed application on 30‑9‑1987. Feeling aggrieved of this order Mst. Sharifan Bibi petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 6‑1‑1988, hence this petition.

3. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the question of the welfare of the minors has not been properly appreciated by the learned Courts below, in that the respondent/ father had not maintained them for 11 years; that the observation made by the Courts below that the petitioner/ mother was poor whereas the respondent /father was a moneyed man was factually incorrect, that the charge of bad character against the petitioner was not proved; that the respondent /father has already contracted second marriage and as such, .the impugned orders are totally against the welfare of the minors and that the minors' mother had not contracted second marriage, so far although she was divorced by the respondent many years back.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the minor sons of the petitioner were above the age of 7 years at the time of the filing of the petition, i.e. 16‑9‑1982; that in view of the ages of the male minors, the mother has no right to their custody; that the Courts below have concurrently found that welfare of the minors lay in their living with the father/ respondent; that the learned Guardian Judge in paras. No.5‑10 of his order and the learned District Judge in para‑3 of his judgment have applied their conscious mind to the question of welfare of the minors and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them. The learned Courts below have not flouted the provisions of relevant law and have considered the question of the custody of the minors in accordance with the case‑law laid down by the superior Courts. I do not see any jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders. The learned counsel has also not been able to show any legal infirmity in the orders. The submissions made by the learned counsel require interference with the appreciation of evidence which cannot be done in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine.

A.A./S‑269/L Petition dismissed.