Ms. Musarrat Hilali, J.--This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2015 of the learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Chitral, whereby appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and the order dated 8.9.2015 of the learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, Drosh, was maintained who had allowed application of the Respondent No, 1 for custody of her minor son.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No, 1 has filed a family suit against the petition& for recovery of dower, maintenance and for custody of minor Sujail (Petitioner No, 2). During pendency of the suit, Respondent No, 1 filed an application for custody of the minor which was allowed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 08.09.2015 against which the petitioners preferred appeal but same was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide order dated 19.11.2015. Hence the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the Courts below have illegaly handed over custody of the minor to her mother without considering the welfare and willingness of the minor. Further contended that Petitioner No, 1, being father of the minor, is entitled to his custody who can look after the child better than the Respondent No,
1. The learned Counsel requested for setting aside of the impugned orders and prayed that custody of the minor be handed over to Petitioner No, L
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Respondent No, 1 contended that Respondent No, 1 is real mother and natural guardian of the minor, therefore, the impugned orders need no interference by this Court. He requested for dismissal of the instant writ petition.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Record shows that the learned trial Court had directed the Petitioner No, 1 vide order dated 8.9.2015 to hand over custody of the minor to Respondent No, 1 which order was confirmed by the learned appellate Court vide order dated 19.11.2015 but strangely the Petitioner No, 1 retained custody of the minor till filing of the instant writ petition. In other words, orders of the two Courts below have not been complied with by Petitioner No,
1. This conduct of petitioner is deplorable as he ought to have given the minor into custody of the Respondent No, 1 in compliance with the Courts' orders and thereafter he could seek his remedy from this Court.
7. Record shows that the minor has not attained the age of 7 years, hence, the Respondent No, 1 is legally entitled for his interim custody with visitation rights to the father of minor. Since both the parties are close neighbours, therefore, the respondent-mother is directed to hand over the interim custody of the minor to the petitioner-father on every Friday, the child shall remain with his father till Sunday evening. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the case within 60 working days positively. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
8. It is made clear that findings of this Court are tentative in nature which shall not affect judgment of the learned trial Court on merits of the case.