FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, J. Through instant writ petition, petitioner impugns judgment dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV , Islamabad (East) to the extent of visitation rights extended to respondent No. 3/father with regard to minor/petitioner No. 2.
2. Essential and relevant facts for adjudication of instant writ petition are that initial ly respondent No. 3 filed petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of minor/petitioner No. 2, which was accepted by the learned Guardian Judge, Islamaba d (East). Vide said order dated 13.09.2018 certain visitation rights were afforded to the petitioner No. 1/real mother . The petitioner No.1 assailed the said order through appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV , Islamabad (East) in terms noted in Para-1 above, hence instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent No. 3 has failed to pay maintenance for so many months, is a patient and permanent resident of District Multan; that in such an eventuality , visitation rights of minor could not have been extended to respondent No. 3 and that although petitioner No. 1 has contracted second marriage but her spouse always recogniz ed the minor/petitioner No. 2 as his own daughter , therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 argued that the stance of the petitioners is contrary to legitimate right of respondent No. 3 being real father; that respondent No. 3, by any canon of law or under the principal of morality , cannot be denied the visitation rights of the minor; that the impugned judgment was passed on 27.02.2019 while writ petition was filed after ten months; that only certain visitation rights have been afforded to respondent No. 3 which could not have been questioned in writ jurisdiction; that the respondent No. 3, being father has a legitimate right to meet his minor daughter and that he never committed default in payment of maintenance, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Record reveals that the visitation rights extended to respondent No. 3/father , questioned through instant writ petition, are at par with the one afforde d to the petitioner No. 1/mother by the learned Guardian Judge. The difference, inter-se the two, is that the learned Guardian Judge accepted the guardian petition of respondent No. 3/father , while the Appellate Court dismissed his guardian petition by accepting the appeal of the petitioner .
7. There is no cavil with the proposition that if there is any dispute regarding paym ent of maintenance, when same is alleged and denied by the other side, obviously said factual aspects are the domain of the learned Trial/Executing Court, which could not be adjudicated by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment reported as "Arshad Mehmood v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 5 other" ( 2001 SCMR 516 ) held that:- "Only limited constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked when it is proved that findings of two learned courts below were not based on any evidence rather based on total misreading of evidence."
9. To some extent, same view was enun ciated by the Hon'ble Sindh High Court in a judgment reported as "Asif Rafique v. Mst. Quratullain and 3 others" (2016 MLD 425) and by the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court in a judgment reported as "Syed Abu Talib Shah and 9 others v. Mst. Bibi Rukhsar Zahra and 2 others" (2012 CLC 1272 ).
10. Record reveals that not a single illegality as discussed in supra referred case laws has been pointed out by the petitioner regarding case at hand.
11. Needless to mention that the matter is in respect of family/guardian wherein only one appeal has been provided by the statute which has been availed of by the petitioner . The writ jurisdiction cannot be made substitute of the appeal/ revision. The jurisdiction conferred on this Court in the nature of writ is very limited and cannot be exercised to go into the deeper appreciation of the evidence.
12. Admittedly , respondent No. 3 is real father of the minor and when the petitioner No. 1 in the opinion of learned respondent No. 1/Additional District Judge, retains love and affection for the minor/ petitioner No. 2, naturally the minor/petitioner No. 2 is entitled to love/af fection/supervision of his father/respondent No. 3 too, for her upbringing and healthy personality growth. The affection/love of both the parents i.e. petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 is essential for the minor
13. It is also matter of record that initially Guardian Petition was allowed by the learned Guardian Judge, which order has been disturbed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment but the respondent No. 3 has not challenged the said decision on the plea that if the court holds visitatio n rights sufficient he is satisfied with the same.
14. In view of above, instant writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed .