' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The present petition i.e, Writ Petition No, 8445 of 2009 as also Writ Petition No, 18202 of 2009 are being disposed of together as both involve common questions of law and facts.
2. The petitioner and respondent No,1, who is also the petitioner in Writ Petition No, 18202 of 2009 (hereinafter be referred to as the respondent) were married but are divorced; out of this wedlock, three children namely Hamza Ilyas (son), Ansa Ilyas (daughter) twins, and Farrah Ilyas (daughter) were born on 31-7-1996 and 25-3-1998 respectively; the petitioner applied for the custody of the two minors daughters, which was with the respondent, while he initiated similar proceedings regarding the son, who was with the petitioner. Both the matters were consolidated; issues were according framed; parties were put to trial and the learned Guardian Judge, vide judgment, dated 22-10-2008 dismissed the application of the respondent while allowed that of the petitioner and the custody of the daughters was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner; the respondent preferred two separate appeals, which were decided in the following terms:-- "As a squeal both the appeals are partly accepted, the impugned order is modified in the manner that the application having been put by the respondent under sections 7, 8 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act is accepted only to the extent of minor son namely Hamza Ilyas and the respondent Mst. Nazli is appointed guardian of person of said minor whereas the appellant's petition put under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act is also party accepted in the terms that the custody of said minor daughters would remain with him (appellant Muhammad Ilyas). To avoid estrangements between the parents and minors and sisters and brother inter se the visitation of all the minors once in a month is allowed. The learned Guardian Judge would chalk out schedule in respect thereof in consultation with the parties."
' Hence these petitions..
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is an educated lady having passed her F.A. And it is during the course of her studies in B.A. That she got married, while the education of the respondent is only primary; his mother is an illiterate woman, whereas his divorcee (admittedly divorced thrice) sister, who in fact is looking after the minors (daughters) is not even a middle to separate all the minors particularly Hamza and Ansa, who are twins, is against their welfare; the educational results of Hamza, who resides with the mother, are far better than the daughters living with the respondent; the respondent due to his business' (a Shopkeeper) engagement is not in a position to supervise the minor daughters and all is left to his mother and sister, as against the petitioner, the mother of the minors, who undoubtedly shall look after her kids better than anyone else. It is therefore, argued that the above important factors regarding the welfare of the minors as have not been kept into view by the learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order, therefore, it cannot sustain.
4. Heard. As regards the question of welfare of the minors, there can be no hard and fast rule, yardstick or litmus test to determine it, rather all in this behalf depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case; however, broadly the criteria can be founded upon the educational, health and upbringing aspects of the minors; the availability of better and congenial environment; the ability of the contestant (for the custody) to cater for the welfare, coupled with the love and affection and happiness, which the minors may attain in the company of a. Particular person.
Therefore, on the noted touchstone, the petitioner comparatively being an educated lady has a clear edge over the respondent's side and this tilts in favour of the welfare of the minors as well; besides, she also has the right of "Hazanat "of the minor daughters; moreover, the love and affection of a mother cannot be substituted by the paternal aunt who mainly is supervising the minors in this case, and as told could not settle down herself and has been divorced thrice. I have examined her in my chamber and feel not much impressed with her capability to look after the minor daughters, Anyhow, the pivotal, main and paramount factor of the case is, if the minors should be allowed to live (separately) with the respective parents as ordered by the learned Appellate Court or they should all be together with either of them (the parents). Before dilating upon the above, it may be observed that one of the greatest blessings of the God Almighty for a child is that he should be part of a normal, integrated and unified family, because the children of broken homes grow up with lots of deprivations, deficiencies and carry the sense of loss, and incompleteness throughout their life; later children many a times are rendered a roller coaster or a rolling stone stumbling between the whims and caprice of two estranged parents, who on account of incompatibility or some other reason are not able to survive as husband and wife and as judicially experienced has the tendency and aptitude to use the minors as a tool to settle their grievances and scores qua each other; this undoubtedly has serious reflection on the minors' personality and may cause irreversible damage to his psyche. However, to control and minimize the impairment in this behalf where there are more than one minor and if no serious legal or factual impediment going against their welfare, it is required of the Courts on the obvious touchstone of the "paramount consideration" to adjudge with whom the minors should live.
Because in my candid view, to compel the minors to live aloof shall in the ordinary course violate their right of togetherness, which is a natural right bestowed upon them by the nature as being the member of the clan of social animals (the human being). Thus the separation shall seriously militate regarding the B welfare of the minors; resultantly, keeping them intact it should be determined by the Court as to which parent (person) shall be more suitable to retain the custody; this has nexus upon the preponderance of the factors regarding the minor's welfare, which is this case tilts in favour of the mother. Besides, in order to form an objective opinion about the said suitability, I have examined the minors in my chamber, who without any shadow of doubt, wants to live together and hate being separated; on the very thought to living part, their gloom and sadness is visible; they look to be unhealthy and downtrodden children, who are far away from the happiness of their childhood, which is normally enjoyed by a united family. My discussion with them reveals that they shall be more happy to live together, but with their mother rather than the grandmother/aunt and obviously, the father as well, who for most of the time is on his job.
In the light of above, by allowing this petition, the impugned order of the learned Appellate Court is set aside and the minors are given to the custody of the petitioner while the other petition of the respondent stands dismissed; however, to enable the minors to meet their father regularly, the visitation schedule is chalked out as below:--- ' All the minors shall be picked up by the respondent from the house of petitioner on every Saturday at 4-00 p.m. And he shall drop them back on the next day (Sunday) at the same time; the respondent shall be entitled to have the minors for first half of the every summer/winter/spring vacations; the minors should also spend first day of both the Eids with the respondent.