' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.--- Three family claims, namely, suit for recovery of dowry articles, suit for recovery of maintenance and a petition under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for custody of minor Arif were filed by Mst. Hafeezan Bibi on 20-1-2007 against Muhammad Nazeer, defendant/ writ petitioner.
2. The suits were resisted by the defendant/writ petitioner.
3. On conclusion of the trial, the aforementioned suits were decided in the following terms vide judgment and decree dated 4-7-2008 passed by Mr. Muhammad Amer Habib, Judge, Family Court, Esa Khel:--- "---the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of dowry articles is partially decreed. Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of dowry articles as per list Exh.P/1 except electronic items, gold ornaments, aprons and miscellaneous house hold articles or in substitute their depreciated price Rs,90,000 is decreed.
Plaintiff is also entitled for maintenance (al Rs,900 per month from filing of the suit till she is legally wedded wife of the defendant. Plaintiff is entitled for custody of minor Muhammad Arif and custody of minor be handed over to the petitioner within 30 days of this order---".
4. An appeal preferred there against was partly accepted and findings of the learned trial Court were modified to the extent that the compensation for the articles of dowry was reduced from Rs,90,000 to Rs,30,000 and further while maintaining the order about the change of custody of the minor, the mode for visitation rights was provided, directing the handing over the temporary custody of the minor by the mother to the father on weekly holidays and additional holidays and festivals for 24 hours.
5. The judgment' and decrees passed by the two Courts below have been challenged in this writ petition only to the extent of changing the custody from the petitioner father Muhammad Nazeer to the respondent mother Mst. Hafeezan Bibi. It was contended that the respondent mother was not in a position to maintain the minor better than the petitioner father as she had no monetary resources; that the minor being of 9 years of age, the intelligent preference made by him in open Court, could not have been ignored and that, in any case welfare of the minor lay in allowing his custody to continue with the father.
6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent opposed the above contentions.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the above contentions with reference to the evidence and attending circumstances.
8. It is axiomatic that it is always the father who has an obligation under law to provide maintenance to his minor children. That being so, the argument that the respondent mother had weak financial position as compared to the petitioner father, is misconceived. The petitioner father has admittedly contracted a second marriage and there would be no gainsaying the fact that he will have to remain out of his house for considerable time in connection with his daily pursuits. The minor cannot be left to the surveillance of step-mother. A step mother can never be a substitute for the real mother. Real mother has inherent right to keep her minor children close to her bosom.
The minor boy had been with the petitioner father and was naturally prone to toe his line as a tutelage in his hand. In these circumstances, intelligent preference of the minor while considering comparative rights of the real mother vis-a-vis the father who had already contracted a second marriage, could be legitimately pushed to oblivion and this is what the learned two Courts below had done.
9. In writ jurisdiction, it is not possible to interfere with the well reasoned findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.