SHUJAA T ALI KHAN, J.--- C.M. No. 1 of 2018. Instant application seeking permission to place on record certain documents is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions.
C.M. No. 2 of 2018.
2. Dispensation sought for is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions.
MAIN CASE.
3. Briefly put, respondent No. 3 filed an application for custody of his daughter and son, namely , Mehwish Bashir and Adeel Hassan, presently aged about 12 years and 9 years, respectively which was dismissed by the learned Guardian Judge, Malakwal (the learned trial Court) vide judgment, dated 03.03.201 6 against which respondent No. 3 filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Malakwal (the learned Appellate Court) vide judgment dated 18.00.2016: hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lap of mother being cradle of God, the petitioner is best choice for custody of the minors; that as the female minor is entering the age of puberty she is in need of constant supervision by her mother; that as respondent No. 3 has not paid maintenance decreed by the Courts below he is not entitled for custody of the minor; that the learned appellate Court has mainly decided the appeal against the petitioner on the ground that she has no source of income whereas as a matter of fact the petitioner is working as Maid in addition to being supported by her real brother; that maternal grandfather of the minors looks after them in absence of the petitioner; that when respondent No. 3 failed to establish third marriage of the petitioner with somebody else no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner by the learned appellate Court.
5. Learned counsel representing respondent No. 3 submits that the evidence adduced by respondent No. 3 is sufficient to establish that he is better choice for custody of the minors as compared to the petitioner; that the petitioner while appearing in the witness-b ox admitted that not only she is an illiterate lady but the children were not admitted in school at the relevant time; that the documents produced by the petitioner today through miscellaneous application cannot be considered as the same were not part of the evidence adduced before the Court of first instance; that it is not believable that a woman working as Maid has been, able to bear expense of a rented house in Bahria Town, Rawalpindi; that character of mother plays a pivotal role towards welfare of the minor whereas in 'the matter in hand the first husband of the petitioner divorced her because of her immoral activities and she also got decree for dissolution of marriage from respondent No. 3 on his reprimand to end extra-marital ties with other persons and that as a matter of fact the petitioner is putting up with Liaqat Bhatti with whom she has contracted third marriage. Relies on Mst. Nasreen Mai v. Allah Wasaya and others (2006 PSC 476), Mehmood Akhtar v.
District Judge Attock and 2 others (PLJ 2005 SC 33), Mrs. Seema Chaudhry and another v. Ahsan Ashraf Sheikh and others (PLD 2003 SC 877), Mst. Rubia Jilani v. Zahoor Akhtar Raja and 2 others (1999 SCMR 1834 ), Mst. Zahida Kiani and another v. Capt. (R) Shahid Ali Khan (1993 SCMR 2303 ), Mst. Parveen Akhtar v.
Muhammad Ashraf (1986 SCMR 1944 ), Shamim v. Niamat Ali (1981 SCMR 635), Mst. Rashida Bibi v.
Muhammad Ismail (1981 SCMR 744), Mst. Nazir v. Hafiz Ghulam Mustafa, etc. (1981 SCMR 200), Mst. Bushra Mughal v. Additional District. Judge,,Kharian and others (1999 MLD 2960 ), Mst. Amir Mai and another v.
Ahmad Ali (1998 CLC 846 ) and Surraya Bibi v . Abdul Rashid (PLD 1969 Lahore 42).
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents annexed with this petition as well as the case-law cited at the bar I have observed that on the previous date of hearing viz. 08.02.2018 instant petition was adjourned for today (05.03.20 18) whereas due to typographical mistak e the same was incorporated as 25.03.2018. The said fact has been affirmed by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the data uploaded in the Enterprise System. Consequently , the same has been corrected as 05.03.2018.
7. Now reverting to merits of the case, I am of the view that while deciding question relating to custody of minors their welfare is prime consideration. In the instant case. the petitioner while appearing as RW-1 admitted that before pronouncement of divorce upon her children were studying in a school: that during subsistence of marriage respondent No. 3 had been very curious about the welfare of the minors and that as she was not able to arrange for necessary funds to meet with necessities of the minors the petitioner started working as Maid. Bashir Ahmad RW-2, father of the petitioner , during his cross-examination, admitted that before dissolution of marriage respondent No. 3 was managing study of the minors in Scholars Islamic Public School, Rawalpindi; that respondent No. 3 was running a school there; that in view of training of respondent No. 3 the minors were courteous and well-mannered; that his daughter (the petitioner) was illiterate and that the petitioner was totally dependent upon them. In this scenario, one thing is color that respondent No. 3 is on better footing as compare to the petitioner in all respects.
8. There is no cavil with the preposition that a female of growing age needs constant supervision of an ender female .in respect of her future needs but the said fact cannot be used to justify custody of the female minor with the petitioner for the reason that for most of the time the petitioner remains out of her house in connection with performance of her duties as Maid in different houses. Though it is not a bad symbol to work as Maid in a house but the same has definite bearing on up bringing of the minor .
9. It is imperative to note that respondent No. 3 is leading life of a retired government servant, thus, would have ample time to take care of the welfare of the minors. Moreover , respondent No. 3, if feels necessary , can arrange for a female Maid especially in view of the future needs of the daughter or can avail services of any female member of his family for the purpose.
10. For what has been noted above, instant petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 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.