1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This is an application seeking clarification of this Court's order, dated 9-6- 1984.
2. By the said order the mother (Mst. Surriya Jabeen) was found entitled to the custody of the minor child (Rahila Riaz) but the father (and his mother) were allowed to keep the child over the week- ends. In this connection it was observed: "Mst. Surriya Jabeen shall hand over the custody of the child to the father, Muhammad Riaz, petitioner No. 1 herein, or his mother Mst. Ghulam Fatima, petitioner No. 2 herein, on every Thursday at about 10 a.m. In the presence of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge, Sargodha.
3. Muhammad Riaz, petitioner No. 1 or Mst. Ghulam Fatima, petitioner No. 2 shall return the custody of the child on Saturday at about same the to the mother again in the presence of the learned Senior Civil Judge/ Guardian Judge, Sargodha."
4. It was further directed that the father or his mother shall not "take the child out of the limits of Sargodha during the week-ends when the child will be in their custody".
5. With regard to the schooling of the child it was ordered that Mst. Surriya Jabeen "will cause the child to continue her studies in her present school".
6. It was added that: "In case there is any difficulty in complying with this direction, the matter may be brought to the attention of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge, Sargodha, who can make any modification in the aforesaid direction in the light of the circumstances brought to his notice; however, after hearing both the parties."
7. The question has arisen whether the above power given to the Senior Civil Judge/Guardian Judge, Sargodha relates only to the last --mentioned direction concerning the schooling of the child, but also with regard to the earlier directions contained in the order?
8. We feel that this application is misconceived. After this Court has passed an order its implementation (including its interpretation) is the function of the executing Court. Any difficulty which may have arisen with regard to the implementation of this Court's order should have, in the first instance, been addressed to the Guardian Judge and not brought before this Court straightaway. Be that as it may, the clear intent of this Court's order is that any difficulty which might arise concerning the affairs of the minor child during the period that she is going to be tossed between the mother and the father should be referred, in the first instance, for resolution to the Guardian Judge who will be empowered to decide the same in the light of all the circumstances existing when the problem is brought before him and that in so doing he may even modify any direction contained in this Court's order, dated 9-6-1984, but this can be done by him only after hearing both the parties and keeping in view the welfare of the minor in every matter brought before him.
9. This application, with these observations, is dismissed.