IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---The petitioner assails order dated 25-4-2009 passed by the learned Guardian Judge, which was assailed in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same vide order dated 31-8-2009.
2. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 1-12-1995. From the marriage three children namely Mst. Zeenat Humayun, minor daughter, aged about 13 years, Abdullah Anwar, minor son aged about 11 years and Abubakar Anwar minor son aged about 9 years were born. For some reasons, the respondent obtained divorce from the petitioner. Since then the parties have been locked in litigation, relating to the custody of the minors, The petitioner has been paying maintenance to the minors @ Rs,1500 per month. The petitioner is residing at Lahore while the minors are living at Okara with their real mother. In the earlier round of litigation, au attempt on the part of the petitioner to take custody of the children remained unsuccessful. However, that did not deter him from initiating a second round of litigation in order to gain custody of the children, which had not succeeded. The record indicates that the learned Guardian Court had fixed a schedule of visitation, which includes fortnightly visits during which the children are allowed to stay with the father for the weekend. Further half of the summer holidays are also dedicated to be spent with the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned subordinate courts have, without assigning any cogent reasons or declaring the petitioner unfit, refused to grant him custody. He submits that no deficiency on the part of the petitioner has been noted by the learned subordinate courts. He further submits that the petitioner is financially better placed. He runs poultry business and lives in Model Town, Lahore and is therefore better qualified and in a better financial position to provide a better upbringing to his children. Relying section 327 of Muhammadan Law, the learned counsel submits that right of Hazanat accrues in favour of father in case of sons on attaining age of seven years and in case of daughter on attaining the age of puberty. Referring to (PLD 2003 SC 877), the learned counsel submits that the welfare of the minors lies in living with the father.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned subordinate courts have applied their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, have come to the conclusion that the welfare of the minors lies with their continuing custody being held by the mother. Points out that the petitioner has married thrice and is living with his third wife at Lahore. He further points out that the learned subordinate courts have consistently noted that the children are being well brought up by the mother and receiving education at one of the best educational institutions at Okara. Further submits that the respondent is complying with the orders relating to visitation passed by the learned subordinate courts and as such there is no compelling reasons to disturb an arrangement which is working smoothly.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused. It is noticed that the minors have been raised by their real mother since their birth. They are well adjusted with their mother and have developed strong emotional bond with her. The record also indicates that she is an educated lady and as noted by the learned subordinate courts is raising her children well. They are being educated at one of the best schools of Okara. The subordinate Courts have also noted that the children are well adjusted emotionally and attached to their mother. At the same time, as directed by the learned subordinate courts, the petitioner has been granted adequate and sufficient opportunity to meet the minors and spend time with them during fortnightly visits, when he gets temporary custody of the minors for the weekend. Further the minors have sufficient exposure to their father when they spend half of their summer holidays with him. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner has re- married and is living with his third wife. Admittedly, he is engaged in the business of poultry, which keeps him out of the house during most part of the day. This would require the children to spend a lot of time with their step-mother. Even if the step-mother is not cruel towards the children, she cannot be a substitute of the real mother. On the hand, the real mother is an educated lady, has not remarried and can devote her full time and attention towards the children. On a comparative analysis of the two possible scenarios namely custody with the father and custody with the mother, I am convinced that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the welfare of the minors clearly lies if their custody is allowed to remain with the mother. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any compelling reasons why custody of the minors, at this stage, should be disturbed, when they are in the formative years of their young lives and displacing them from the current environment where they are happy, settled and well adjusted. Their displacement at this stage may cause physical and psychological problems for the children leaving lifelong scars on their personalities. Further it has not been demonstrated before me as to how the learned subordinate courts have acted illegally or with material irregularity. I have gone through the judgments of the learned subordinate courts and find that they have applied their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and have reached to just, fair and reasonable conclusions, which are warranted by law and passed orders, which fall within the ambit of jurisdictional competence. In this view of the matter I do not find this to be a fit case for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. In view of the above, this petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.