The brief facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner and respondent No.l were married in accordance with Muslim Rites and out of the wedlock two boys, namely, Aamer Iftikhar and Nasir Iftikhar were born. Then the parties fell apart and resulted in a divorce. It seems that the eldest son was already with the respondent No.l while he filed an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of minor son Nasir Iftikhar. The petitioner resisted this application but the same was accepted by the learned Guardian Judge vide order dated 7-4-1991. The petitioner assailed this order through an appeal before the District Judge, who entrustecl the same to Mr. Naveed-uz-Zafar the then Additional District Judge. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 3-12-1991. The petitioner did not pursue the matter in the higher forum. However, the petitioner made an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for a direction to the respondent No.l to allow her to see her minor son periodically. The respondent No.l resisted the application. The learned Guardian Judge after hearing the parties proceeded to dismiss this application vide order dated 19-11-1992. The petitioner assailed this order through an appeal before the District Judge, who transferred the same to Mr. Muhammad Latif Qureshi, Additional District Judge. This appeal was dismissed on 29- 7-1993. The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has impugned orders passed on her application.
2. The petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondent No.l has appeared and contested the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that the respondents No.2 and 3 failed to appreciate that the application did not amount to review of the earlier order and the same was competent. The only factor to be kept in view in deciding the petition was the welfare of the minor.
In this behalf, the learned counsel has referred to judgment in Mst. Zahran v. Imar Draz and others (1993 CLC 907).
3. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Hafeez, Advocate for respondent No-1 argued that both the Guardian Judge and appellate Court decided the application of the respondent for appointment of guardian keeping all the relevant factors in view including the character of the petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate Court and again whole of the evidence on record was discussed. The appeal was dismissed on 3-12-1991 while the present application was moved on 19-1-1992. There was no intervening factor to reconsider the question of welfare of the minor. It is added that the eldest son Aamer Iftikhar is now 21 years old and he appeared as A.W.
This statement goes a long way to show that how much the petitioner is interested in welfare of her children. It is maintained that the application was mala fide and the sole purpose was to keep the respondent involved in an endless litigation. It is submitted that the petitioner was involved and convicted in a criminal case under Hudood Order but was subsequently acquitted by giving her benefit of doubt.
4. I have given anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The appeal of the petitioner against the order appointing respondent No.l as guardian was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 3-12-1991 while the present application moved by her before the Guardian Judge is dated 19-1-1992. The sole contention was that the petitioner is the real mother of the minor and intend to see him periodically but the respondent No.l is not allowing the petitioner to see her minor son. The learned Guardian Judge rightly treated it as a review application because it amounted to adding to his order dated 7-4- 1991. He further noted that his order dated 7-4-1991 has been upheld by the appellate Court, therefore, now the final order in the field is that of the appellate Court, therefore, he is now not competent to alter or add. The Additional District Judge discussed the matter at length and came to the conclusion that both the Guardian Judge as well as the Appellate Court did not make any such provision for meetings of the petitioner with the.minor keeping in view the welfare of the minor. The relevant portion reads as under:-- "5.Even otherwise it was incumbent upon the Guardian Judge to pass a specific order about the meeting of the minor with his mother. The record reveals that the previous orders were passed with a conscious mind, keeping in view the background of moral attitude of the appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant did not move an identical application to meet her other son who was living with the respondent. She chose conveniently to meet only Nasir Iftikhar whose custody was refused to her by the appellate Court. It would not be out of place to mention here that the appellant was involved in cases of immoral turpitute and probably for this reason the learned Guardian Judge did not make any arrangement for the meeting of the minor with the appellant ...."
The Additional District Judge rightly held that no such petition is competent and, in this behalf, he referred to Mst. Imtiaz Begum v. Sheikh Azmat Ullah (PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lahore 750). There is nothing wrong with these findings.
5. ' The minor is 10 years old. It is not in his welfare that the petitioner should be allowed to see him in view of character as well as relations with the father of the minor. It will be just making the minor a psychological case. There is nothing for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. The result is that this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.