' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 30-5-2005, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No,9290 of 2005.
2. The respondent No,1, an ex-wife of the petitioner ,filed an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act; for custody of minors, Armish Altaf Alvi and Ahmad Altaf Ali, which was disposed of by the Guardian Judge/Family Court, Lahore, by order dated 14-12-2004, in view of compromise between the parties. It was further directed that permanent custody of minors would remain with the petitioner who would handover minors on each Sunday from 9-00 a.m. To 4-00 p.m. To the respondent No,1 for visitation and the respondent would see the minors in the home of her mother.
3. The appeal of the petitioner thereagainst was partly allowed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, by judgment dated 28-3-2005, by making some changes in respect of visitation rights of the respondent. The petitioner still felt aggrieved and filed Writ Petition No,9290 of 2005 which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by the impugned judgment, dated 30-5-2005. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent No,1 had contracted second marriage with a stranger, one Tahir Qayyum. Therefore, she had lost her right of Hazanat or even visitation of minor children. A miscellaneous application was also moved by the petitioner for rejection of the main petition of the respondent but the Guardian Judge disposed of the same without recording any evidence thereon.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the relevant record with his assistance. We find that the Additional District Judge adopted a very sensible approach by permitting the respondent No,1 to meet the minors in the Library of bar Council at Ewan-e-Adal, Lahore, on first Saturday of each month from 9-00 a.m. To 2-00 p.m.
Which would be arranged by the Guardian Judge in presence of a representative and the petitioner would take back the minors after the meeting. The order passed by the Additional District Judge, as upheld by the High Court, is just and fair to which no exception can be taken. The respondent mother cannot be denied minimum right of access to her minor children nor can she be considered like an alien enemy qua them. In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in A this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.