1. SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.---At the outset, learned counsel has emphasized over the relevant paragraph of impugned judgment which speaks that: "I have considered the arguments advanced by the both sides and perused the record. From a perusal of record it appears that the applicant is real mother of the minor therefore, ,she has right to see his child and to meet him. At this stage no reasonable ground has been furnished by the applicant to give her interim custody of the minor till final decision of the case, who is residing with the respondent since last four years however, the applicant is allowed to meet her child/minor before this court therefore, the respondent is directed to produce the minor on first and last Saturday for the purpose of meeting with the applicant. The applicant shall pay a sum of Rs,600/- to the respondent for production of the minor as fare charges. The meeting shall be held at 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM. This order is based on tentative assessment and shall not affect merits of the case."
2. Though, petitioner (mother) agitated, before the trial Court for the custody of minor but her prayer was not allowed and only visiting right was allowed with direction to the respondent to produce the minor on first and last Saturday for meeting purposes with rider that applicant shall pay a sum of Rs,600/- to the respondent for the production of minor as fare charges. Learned counsel contends that this embargo is not legal and is against the spirit of visible and invisible laws as mother cannot be compelled to pay fee to the father for production of minor, hence, he would not challenge the whole judgment except the findings with regard to payment of fare charges.
3. Perusal of judgment reflects that petitioner (mother) failed to make out her case for custody, however, she was allowed to meet the minor and respondent was directed to produce the minor twice in a month as well petitioner was directed to pay Rs,600/- towards fare ,charges. The position, so arose, makes me to first say that there can be no exception to the fact that status of 'parent' is consequence of a legal contract which continues even on dissolution of marriage between parents. The liabilities of parents continue towards the child who (child) shall always be known of such parents whether they reside together or separately or even no more husband and wife. This has been the obvious reason that it is by now well settled that "law favours the right of visitation of a parent to remain intact even if the custody is awarded to other parent subject to such terms and conditions, as may be determined by Guardian Judge" Reference may well be made to the cases of Sardar Hussain v. Mst. Parveen Umer PLD 2004 SC 357 and Mst. Nighat Firdous v. Khadim Hussain 1998 SCM R 1593.
4. This principle, however, would neither change nor control another well established principle of law which morally and legally binds the 'father' alone to maintain the child and this liability normally never shifts. Reference may safely be placed on the case of Baskhat Bibi v. Bahadur Ali 2014 CLC 1260 wherein it is observed as:- 7. Further more, the better financial status of a father does not give him any preference over the mother. By all stretched of imaginations, it is the sole responsibility of the father to cater the needs of his children, irrespective of their place of residence or custody.... Therefore, if both the above principles are kept in juxtaposition it would result into nothing but that whenever right of visitation is allowed to a mother such right legally cannot be made subject to any remuneration. Having said so, I would revert to Merits of instant case. In the instant matter, since the petitioner (mother) was declined permanent custody of minor on the ground of her failure to substantiate her plea and only meeting was allowed. The right to claim custody of the child is always subject to satisfaction of Guardian Judge that as to where the welfare of the minor lies. Such satisfaction is never controlled either by financial status of parents or that of parent being mother or father but to welfare of the minor alone. There has been pointed out no illegality in impugned judgment to such extent rather petitioner has conceded to it while challenging the rider of payment of fare expenses therefore, merits of case to such extent needs not be discussed any more. I would add that such decision (declining custody) however shall never prejudice to right of visitation if claimed, by failed parent because such failure even would not prejudice his / her status as 'parent' of the child. Since, undisputedly the petitioner is a mother hence has a right to visit her child which, as already discussed, cannot be subject to any remuneration, therefore, the rider that she is required to pay fare charges, which apparently is not justified rather is against the basic principles of law. Accordingly, instant petition is disposed of; impugned judgment is maintained; however, the last portion of findings with regard to payment of fare charges is set aside.