FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.-The minors namely Iqra Rubab and Saqlain Abbas, who were in the legal custody of the petitioner, were removed by respondent No,2 forcibly. The petitioner moved petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. Before the Sessions Judge, Multan on 4-1-2006 with the prayer to recover the minors from respondent No,2 and handed over to her.
2. Vide order dated 14-2-2006, respondent No,2 was directed to produce the minors on 20-2-2006.
On 20-2-2006, S.H.O. Stated that respondent No,2 was not traced out and sought time to recover the minors. The case was adjourned to 23-2-2006 and on the said date, respondent No,2 appeared but the minors were not brought by him. He was again directed to produce the minors for today i.e,24-2-2006.
3. Today, die minors have been produced by respondent No,
2. It is admitted by learned counsel for respondent No,2 that the minors were taken by the respondent from the school as they are not properly looked after by the petitioner and it was alone in the welfare of the minors. Further contends that the minors may be handed over to the petitioner but respondent No,2 be allowed to approach the Guardian Judge for the custody of the minors.
4. Admittedly, the proper forum to determine the question of custody of the minors is the Guardian Court, established under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Section 491, Cr.P.C. Is not meant to preempt the jurisdiction of Guardian Court or in any manner to substitute the proceedings to be conducted by the Guardian Judge. The order under section 491, Cr.P.C. Is tentative in nature as a stop gape arrangement subject to final determination by the Guardian Judge.
5. In this view of the matter, the minors are handed over to the petitioner. Respondent No,2 can approach the Guardian Judge for redressal of his grievance under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.