1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Mst. Nighat Firdaus (petitioner herein) calls in question the judgment, dated 31st January, 1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court; whereby, the Writ Petition No,793 of 1993 filed by petitioners, was dismissed.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that Adnan Khadim, minor son of the respondent Khadim Hussain, remained in the care of the petitioners Mst. Nighat Firdaus since the year 1983 when his mother died and his father could not properly look after him. He executed an agreement, dated 1st September, 1983 whereby he allowed the. Custody of the minor with the petitioner and agreed not to claim him in future. He re-married in 1985 as per copy of the Nikahnama, available on the paper book, and a son was born to him from the second wife. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has also married and has a daughter. The respondent filed application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the minor before the Guardian Judge which was resisted by the petitioner. After recording necessary evidence in the case the learned Senior Civil Judge accepted the petition and directed the petitioner to hand over the custody of the minor to the respondent. This order was, however, set aside in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, and the case was remanded to the trial Court for recording the choice of the minor. The remand order was complied with and the minor expressed his willingness to remain in the custody of Mst. Nighat Firdaus petitioner. Still the learned trial Court did not consider it proper to allow the minor to remain in the custody of his maternal aunt and directed the petitioner to hand over the custody of the minor to his father. Appeal against it was also dismissed and so was the writ petition through the impugned order.
3. ' We have heard Mian Inamul Hach Advocate for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case with his assistance.
4. As stated above the minor had been under the care of the petitioner since the death of his mother.
5. The only ground agitated by the respondent is that after attaining the age of seven years he is entitled to the custody of the minor as of right. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the determining factor regarding the custody of the minor is his welfare. Leave is granted to consider; whether, it will be in the interest of the minor to remain in the custody of petitioner or he should be given in the custody of his father.