' The petitioner was married to one Rafaqat Bibi, who was the real sister of Muhammad Hussain, respondent No,1 . Due to strained relations between the spouses -Mst. Rafaqat Bibi started living with her parents/brothers in Amin Colony, Narowal City. The children of the petitioner namely Mst.
Sumera Bibi alias Uzma Bibi, Mst. Saira Bibi, Mukhtar Ahmed and Bilal Ahmad were living with their mother in the house of their maternal-uncle respondent No,1. In the year 1994 an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was filed by the present petitioner before Guardian Judge, Sialkot. The said application was contested by Mst. Rafaqat Begum and ultimately the said application was dismissed. Mst. Rafaqat Bibi subsequently died. The petitioner has now filed application for recovery of his children from the house of their maternal-uncle Muhammad Hussain. A prayer has also been made that the said children who were in improper custody of the respondents be set at liberty on the ground that respondent No,1 was neither a natural guardian nor a guardian appointed by any Court and as such could not keep the custody of the minors as also the adult daughter of the petitioner with him.
2. The application has been contested by respondent No,1 who was issued a notice. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the custody of the children of the deceased sister of Muhammad Hussain was neither illegal nor improper and that the children were living with him since his sister vas turned out by the petitioner from his house.
3. The petitioner was admittedly the father and natural guardian of the children mentioned supra.
He has not claimed custody of the children even in the petition and has simply prayed for setting the children at liberty. Uzma Bibi was of 19 years of age as given by the petitioner and Mst. Saira Bibi was of 14/15 years, whereas Mukhtar Ahmed was of 13 years and Bilal Ahmed was of 7/8 years. The minors cannot be set at liberty by this Court and could only be given in custody to somebody who was entitled to the same. The grown up daughter of the petitioner can also not be allowed to go with any Na Mahram and respondent No,1 who was the maternal-uncle of the said girl was admittedly a Mahram. The prayer of the petitioner made in the petition was neither legal nor proper.
4. The petitioner was of course the legal guardian of the children being their father. This Court is to see the welfare of the minors while handing over the custody of the minors to the claimant. The welfare of the minors is a question of fact which could only be decided after recording of evidence and there was a forum available to the petitioner for getting the relief. He could move an application to the Guardian Judge at Narowal which he had earlier done and had failed.
5. Without expressing any opinion as to the welfare of the minors/children I am constrained to remark that custody of children with respondent No,1 was neither improper nor illegal and as such this application fails and is dismissed accordingly.