' A petition filed by Mst. Imam Sain respondent No.3 before the Guardian Judge, Bahawalnagar under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for appointment as guardian of her minor daughter Mst. Pheelan Sain was accepted on 15-7-1986. Petitioner preferred an appeal there against in the Court of District Judge, Bahawalnagar. In the course thereof, although the minor was in his own custody, the petitioner put in an application on 25-10-1986 for the minor being called up in the Court to ascertain her preference which was contested by the mother of the minor with the pleas firstly, that since the minor is living with the father, therefore, his application is pointless and, secondly, that the child has not attained maturity enough to be able to make an inteligent choice and is also likely to have been brain-washed by him. Learned District Judge dismissed this application by his order dated 8-12-1986 for the reason that wish of the minor is only one of the matters which may be considered by the Court and is not otherwise relevant. This order is assailed in this writ petition with the prayer that a direction may issue to the learned District Judge by setting aside his order that statement of the minor be recorded before deciding the appeal.
2. View of the learned District Judge finds support from the judgment in Mst. Aisha v. Manzoor Hussain and others PLD 1985 SC 436, para. 8 whereof is reproduced:- "It may be mentioned that although preference of the minor may, in such cases, be taken into consideration but it is not always relevant because the minor is not the best Judge as to where his (or her) welfare lies. We have noticed generally that a child is apt to prefer to continue living with the parents or relative with whom he/she has been allowed to live for sometime as such person is in a position, be it the father or the mother, to brain-wash the child against the other claimant to the child's custody."
' Therefore, whether the minor is aged 10 years, as is deposed to by the mother, or is 14 years old, as has been asserted herein, her preference for staying with one or the other of her parents would not be of much consequence in determining her welfare which has to be decided by the Court in keeping with the law propounded in a large number of cases whereof reference may be made only to Rahimullah Chaudhry v. Mrs. Sayeda Helali Begum and others 1974 SC MR 305; Mst. Feroze Begum v. Lt.-Col. Muhammad Hussain 1978 SCM R 299 and Najma Parveen v. Ihsan-ur-Rehman NLR 1985 Civil 110.
3. There is no such error or irregularity attaching to the order passed by the learned District Judge as may either make it corum non judice or render it liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction which, it is needless to emphasise, is not to be exercised as a matter of mere course but by keeping in view of the propriety thereof so that it may be declined to be exercised in cases where a just and proper order has come to be made, even if some illegality may be assumed to be attaching to such an order. The order impugned herein is undoubtedly unexceptionable.
4. Upshot of the foregoing is that there is no case made out for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, dismissed in limine.