' Through this Constitutional petition, Muhammad Shafiq petitioner seeks declaration to the effect that the order dated 8-5-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, is illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that Muhammad Shafiq petitioner filed an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of his minor children, namely, Imran Shehzad, aged eight and a half years and Irfan Shehzad, aged 7 years, against Mst.
Irshad Begum (mother of the children) before the learned Judge Family Court, Gujrat. This application was resisted. Issues were framed. The parties led evidence. The learned trial Court accepted the application of the petitioner on 12-10-1989. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Mst. Irshad Begum respondent/defendant filed an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat. Consequently, the application of the petitioner for the custody of his minor children was dismissed, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgments of the Courts below are at variance; that the children being above 7 years in age, the petitioner was/is entitled to their custody; that the welfare of the children lies in their living with the petitioner/father and not living with their mother, respondent No,2; that the learned Appellate Court has not attended to the reasons given by the learned trial Court for accepting the application of the petitioner and that the learned Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the question of the welfare of the children.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I do not agree with him. The learned Additional District Judge being the Appellate Court was quite competent to reverse the findings of the learned trial Court; that he has taken into consideration the reasons given by the learned trial Court; admittedly, the petitioner/father does not live in Pakistan and he has not been maintaining the minors although he was legally/morally obliged to maintain them while they were living with their mother and that no male member of the family of the petitioner lives in his house in Pakistan. After taking into consideration the evidence on record and the attending circumstances, the learned Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the welfare of the children does not lie in their living with the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge has given sound and cogent reasons for disagreeing with the findings and reasons given by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading or non- reading of any evidence by the learned Appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge has not flouted the provisions of relevant law. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it does not seem to be proper to interfere in exercise of the constitutional powers of this Court, with the appreciation of the evidence and circumstances made by the learned Appellate Court. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the learned Appellate Court. The submissions made by the learned counsel are devoid of force and substance.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.