' Mst. Saliha Bibi daughter of Zair Din and Lal 'Khan son of Nadir Khan have challenged the judgment and decree ,dated 21-4-1985 of the learned District Judge, Bannu in the instant civil revision petition under section 115, C. P. C. Vide the order dated 18-6-1984 of Mr. Muhammad Nasim Khan, Senior Civil Judge exercising the powers of the Guardian Judge, Bannu was upheld.
2. Facts iii brief are that Mst. Badri Jamala instituted an application for appointment as the guardian of minors Dilber Khan son and Mst. Sahiba daughter of Muhammad Nawaz Khan. It was alleged that the petitioner Badri Jamala is the maternal grandmother of the minors while respondent No, 1 is their mother who after the death of her husband Muhammad Nawaz contracted a second marriage with Lal Khan petitioner. It was asserted that having contracted a second marriage with a stranger who had no relationship whatsoever with the minors the welfare of the children was being jeopardized at the hands of their step father and both the minor children were not being properly looked after. It was prayed that in the interest of the welfare of the minors, petitioner Mst. Badri Ja.Nala who is their maternal-grandmother may be appointed as their guardian both for their person and property. This petition was contested by the contesting respondents and after recording the evidence of the patties as they wished to adduce the learned Guardian Judge by accepting the petition appointed Mst. Badri Jamala guardian of the minors as prayed for. It will not be out of place to mention that one Mst. Bakhtawara also had applied for her appointment as the guardian of the two minors but her petition was rejected. Feeling dissatisfied with the conclusion of the learned Guardian Judge both Lal Khan the step-father and Mst. Saliha Bibi mother of the minors preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Bannu who too concurring with the findings of the learned Guardian Judge dismissed the appeal per his order dated 21-1-1985 and hence the instant civil revision petition.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners were heard and record as available before me was examined.
4. In the very outset it may be pointed out that findings of the appellate Court in guardianship cases are final for all intents and purposes and the concurrent findings in such like matters are not open to be questioned in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In Abdul Ghafoor Gil v. Musarrat Khan (1) a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on the basis of Supreme Court authority Sakhawat All v. Shai Khely (2) came to the conclusion that a revision petition in the guardianship cases was not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the instant civil revision petition on that score alone is liable to dismissal.
5. Even otherwise it is well-settled principle that concurrent findings of the two Courts below on a question of fact are not open to revision by the High Court in its limited scope under section 115, C.
P. C. Both the B Courts below have concurrently held that the welfare of the two minors lies with their and mother Mst. Badri Jamala and not in their C real mother Mst. Saliha Bibi because she has contracted second marriage with Lal Khan petitioner after the death of her former husband Muhammad Nawaz from whom she gave birth to the two minors. It is definitely a question of fact and is thus unexceptionable in a revision petition. Learned counsel for, the petitioners utterly failed to point out firstly that a civil revision in such like matters is competent and secondly even if assuming for the sake of arguments, without conceding, that this Court can adjudicate upon the matter in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, even in that case nothing was brought on record or during his arguments before me that the two Courts below came to a perverse findings by either misreading the evidence or by exercising a jurisdiction not vested in them, or failing to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. Similarly this Court may annul the findings of the two Courts if it comes on record that the two D Courts below have committed an illegality or irregularity. In the absence of any ingredients of that nature this Court cannot be expected to interfere with the concurrent findings reached at by the two competent forums.
6. The superior Courts have repeatedly held that a mother loses the' right of Hizanat if she contracts marriage with a person not related to the 'E minors within the prohibitory degree. In this case no evidence has been adduced to persuade me to hold that Lal Khan petitioner is in any manner
(1) PLD 1984 Lah. 332 (2) PLD 1981 SC 454 related to the two minors except that he has contracted marriage with the' mother of the minors after the death of her first husband. In such like situation it is but children from her second husband i,e, Lal Khan she would lose all her love and sympathies with the minors whose welfare will be definitely adversely affected if they are given in the custody of their mother who contracted a second marriage. Besides the love and affection with the children no more exists when the mother contracts a second marriage without caring for the future of her minor children.
7. In these circumstances I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below and accordingly I dismiss this civil revision petition in limine.