Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1468 of 1982, decided on 19th February, 1983.

‑‑ S. 25‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Custody of minor‑Respondent No. 2 father of minor daughters contracting second marriage and having children from second wife‑Mother of minors a teachress not contracting second marriage‑Order of delivery of custody of minors to mother, held, a question of fact‑District Judge given reasons while passing order of delivery of custody of minors to mother, High Court, held further, always reluctant to interfere with appreciation of evidence by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Agha Mehmood Ali for Petitioner.

Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 19th February. 1983.

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Muhammad Zaman khan, petitioner, wants this Court to declare judgment and decree dated 18th October, 1982 passed by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal, respondent No. 1, to be without law ful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that Mst. Nuzhat Ara, respondent No. 2 was the wife of Muhammad Zaman Khan, peti tioner herein, who divorced her in the year 1977. Out of her wedlock two daughters namely, Robena Zaman and Samina Zaman were born on 30th February, 1968 and 10th January, 1971, respectively. Since the minor daughters were living with their father, therefore, Mst. Nuzhat Ara, respondent No. 2 moved application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act before the learned District Judge, Sabiwal who entrusted the same to the Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge, Sahiwal who exer cising the powers of Guardian Judge dismissed the application on 14th November. 1981.

3. Feeling aggrieved Mst. Nuzhat Ara, the mother, filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Sahiwal, who vide order dated 18th October, 1982 while accepting the appeal and setting aside the order of the Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge, dated 14th November, 1982 di rected the petitioner herein, to deliver the custody of the minor daughters to the appellant on 1st November, 1982 before the learned Guardian Judge, Sahiwal, failing which the appellant would move for the execution of that order. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Dis trict Judge having not adverted to the reasons given by the trial Court and his findings being based on no evidence, the impugned judgment is with out lawful authority.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has however, defended the impugned judgment.

5. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that Mst. Robena Zaman and Samina Zaman are minor daughters of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 ; that Muhammad Zaman Khan has contracted second marriage and as admitted before me by his learned counsel, the petitioner have children from his second wife ; that Mst. Nuthat Ara has not contracted second marriage so far that Mst. Nuzhat Ara is a teachress ; that the question of the welfare of the minor daughters is a question of fact and the learned District Judge has applied his mind to the factual and legal aspect of the matter ; that the learned District Judge has given reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by him ; and that this Court has always been reluctant to interfere with the appreciation of the evidence by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

6. For what has been found above it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed without lawful authority.

Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

M. A. K. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.