RAJA SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---Above captioned appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Senior Civil Judge empowered as Judge Family Court, Bhimber , dated 25.04.2016, whereby the application filed by appellant for custody of two minor daughters and a son was dismissed.
2. The facts precisely stated are that appellant herein filed an application for custody of minors children, before Senior Civil Judge empowered as Judge Family Court, Bhimber on 10.06.2015, wherein it is averred that the minors are real children of the applicant who at this time are residing with their mother, as are not willing to live with him and are living from the very first day of marriage because the applicant is poste d at Bhimber . On 2006 when he was transferred to Kotli, then non-applica nt without any reason refused to go with her, still she is living with her parents. The children of the applicant are also living with their grand maternal mother and father . The non-applicant is the employee of Education department, she is not proper looking after the minors while her parents are old age persons who cannot better look-after the minors, therefore, in the interest of justice custody of minors may be handed over to the applicant. The respondent resisted the application through filing written statement and stated that applicant has no cause of action therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
3. The learned Judge Family Court, Bhimber , after due process of law and hearing arguments .of the learned Advocates for the parties, dismissed the application of appellant, vide impugned judgment dated 25.04.2016, hence this appeal.
4. Mohammad Shabbir Sharif, the learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintif f reiterated the grounds already taken in the appeal and argued that the Court below misread the evidence of the parties and wrongly dismissed the application of appellant. The learned Counsel pointed out that in light of application and written statements, the impugned judgment is not sustainable. The learned Counsel stressed on the point that respondent does not deserve for custody of minors children because she is also working as lecturer in the Education department who is living separate life only for her parents and did not allow the children to meet their father but the Court below also oversight this aspect; therefore, she cannot bring up the minors in an appropriate manner as compared to the father-appellant, therefore, by accepting the appeal the impugned judgment may be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Kh. Aamir Rasool Butt, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant is not entitled to take custody of the minors because the welfare of the-minor lies with the mother , as compared to the father . The learned Counsel defended the impugned decision on all counts and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. In the light of the arguments addresse d at Bar by learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully perused the record.
7. It is proper to mention here that on 13.02.2019, the appellant moved an applicati on stating therein that he did not met his children since 2015 and he is ready to pay maintenance allowance and requested to summon the minors for meeting. On this request respondent along-with minors were summoned who appeared before the Court on 20.02.2013 but appellant failed to appear before the Court, however , if the appellant wants to meet with his children he shall approach to learned trial Court and learned trial Court shall make such order as it deems fit.
8. It may be mentioned that paramount consideration while deciding the question of custody of the minors is the welfare of the minors which has to be seen in view the age, sex and religion. The personal law has also to be taken into consideration.
9. It is important to note here that father of minors is living alone in city Kotli and is professor by profession at this time. In such like situation, it is incumbe nt upon the Court to see the convenienc e and welfare of the minor , the minors remained with their mother from the childhood; therefore, they are more familiar and akin to their mother as compared to his father . Section 17 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, postulates the matters to be considered by the Court in appointing the Guardian. Subsection (3) of the aforementioned section provides that if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the Court may consider that preference. During proceedings before this Court, on 20.02.2019 the minors along-with their mother appeared before the open court and when it was asked to them to whom they want to live with, the minors opted their mother , there fore, it will not be in the interest of minors to give them in the custody of father .
11(sic). Moreover , from perusal of record reveals that appellant is professor in Education department by profession who is living alone and busy in college during day time. In his absence, no one is present in his house who can better look after the minors children of appellant. In the light of the evidence, the real mother is looking after the minor in an appropriate manner and they are also studying in a best school of the city. Nothing has been brought on record which may indicate that the minors children are not being brought up and looked after in bad manner , mere relationship of minors with appellant is not a sufficient ground to handover the custody of the minors and it would not be in the interest of minor to put them an alien environment. Thus, the impugned decision has been recorded in a legal fashion, which does not call for any IF interference by this Court; which is maintained.
For the foregoing reasons, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.