SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through captioned Constitution petition, petitioner Muzamil Ahmed Rajput has invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and impugned order dated 26.09.2013, passed by the Court of Family Judge, Rohri, in Guardianship Application No.8 of 2013 And order dated 21.06.2014, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (H), Sukkur, in Guardianship Appeal No.4 of 2013.
2. The relevant facts narrated in instant petition are that petitioner solemnized his marriage with respondent And from their wedlock one baby was born but due to disputes their marriage was dissolved. Thereafter respondent filed suit for maintenance against the petitioner before the Court of Family Judge, Moro, which was decreed. Petitioner challenged said judgment And decree thorough Family Appeal which is still pending before the appellate Court. It is further averred that respondent re-married And shifted at Rohri. Petitioner approached the parents of respondent for return of the custody of baby but they did not pay Any heed to his demand. Petitioner filed G And W application before the Family Judge, Rohri against the respondent for restoration of the custody of minor daughter, but same was returned to the petitioner with direction to file before the concerned Family Court at Naushahro Feroze. Petitioner challenged the said order through Guardian Appeal, which was also dismissed by the appellate Court, hence instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that respondent after her second marriage has shifted at Rohri And residing with her second husband along with minor baby, therefore, both the Courts below have wrongly dismissed the application And appeal filed by the petitioner for the custody of minor, directing the petitioner to approach the Family Court of District Naushahro Feroze.
4. While controverting the above submissions, learned AAG vehemently contended that though respondent is residing with her second husband at Rohri, but baby has been residing with the parents of respondent at Moro And only to settle his account of enmity, petitioner has filed Guardians And Wards application before the Family Judge, Rohri; that learned trial Court after considering the entire record, has rightly dismissed the Guardian And Wards application And said order was also maintained by the appellate Court; that Family Appeal filed by the petitioner against the decree of maintenance is still pending before appellate Court at Moro; that there are concurrent findings of the Courts below, hence instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel and perused the record minutely.
6. Petitioner was married with the respondent on 24.12.2008 And from their wedlock baby Falak was born, but due to certain disputes, respondent filed Family Suit No.25 of 2010 for dissolution of her marriage before the Family Judge, Moro, which was decreed And their marriage tie was dissolved by way of Khula. Subsequently, respondent filed Family Suit No.73 of 2010 for maintenance before the Court of Family Judge, Moro, against the petitioner, which was also decreed. Petitioner agitated the impugned judgment by filing Family Appeal before the appellate Court at Moro which is still sub-judice.
7. Indeed, respondent re-married with one Ghulam Nabi And shifted to the house of her second husband at Rohri but baby Falak aged about 4 years is still residing with the parents of respondent at Moro. The contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner to record evidence of the parties after framing of issue on the point of jurisdiction of G And W Court, has no substance to be considered at this stage as petitioner himself had approached the parents of the respondent at Moro for return of the custody of minor which was not acceded by them. Petitioner has not filed Any tangible evidence to establish that minor baby Falak is residing with the respondent at Rohri And on the mere presumptions, he has invoked the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Rohri, by filing G And W application for restoration of the custody of baby, And after hearing the counsel for petitioner And examining the available material, learned trial Court returned G And W application to petitioner with directions that he may file the same before the concerned Family Court at Naushehro Feroze, though he agitated impugned order, by preferring G And W appeal, but same was also dismissed by the appellate Court. Perusal of the available material reflects that minor baby has been residing at Moro, And Any proceeding for determination of her custody at Rohri, would cause hardships for production of the minor from Moro before the Family Court, Rohri.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner candidly admitted that petitioner has never paid a single penny on the amount of maintenance of minor after the dispute arose between the parties. From bare reading of the impugned orders passed by the Family Court as well as the appellate Court, learned counsel has failed to point out Any material illegality or irregularity committed by both the Courts below, hence same do not call for Any interference.
9. Considering the above facts, circumstances And concurrent findings of both the Courts below, instant petition being devoid of legal force stands dismissed. However, if petitioner files G And W application for the custody of the minor baby Falak before the concerned Family Court at Naushahro Feroze And during the trial at Any stage, it is established that minor has been residing at Rohri, the learned trial Court shall pass An appropriate order without moving Any application by the parties. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.