' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, respondent No,1 solemnized marriage to Muhammad Ehsan petitioner about five years back. Out of the wedlock of the petitioner and respondent No,1 Mst. Shaista Ehsan aged three years was born and another daughter who is with her. Relationship of the petitioner and respondent No,1 were strained and finally petitioner snatched the minor from respondent No,1 and turned her out from his house.
Respondent No, 1 being constrained by the aforesaid circumstances filed an application under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of the ward. The petitioner filed reply of the application controverted all the allegations levelled in the application. Out of the pleadings of the parties learned Guardian Judge framed the following issues:-- ' Whether the petitioner is entitled to the custody of minor ? OPA. Whether the welfare of the minor is with the petitioner ? OPA. Relief.
' The learned Guardian Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 13-3-1997 accepted the application. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the District Judge, Khushab who vide his judgment and decree dated 24-5-1997 dismissed the appeal in the following terms:-- ' The mother has a right to keep the custody of her minor daughter upto the age she reaches the age of puberty and in the present case, the minor daughter is still about 4 years of age. The defendant/appellant has not been able to prove that the mother is not entitled to the custody of her minor daughter. It appears to be a case of highhandedness that the defendant/appellant had taken away the daughter from her mother who can properly look after her daughter. Learned trial Court has rightly decided the issues in favour of Mst. Shahnaz who is entitled to the custody of her minor daughter Mst. Shaista."
' Hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner contended that both the Courts below decided the case against the petitioner without considering the welfare of the minor. He further contended that both the Courts below misread the record and the judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading.
3. The learned counsel of the respondent No,1 supported the judgment of both the Courts.Below on all material facts.
3-A. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record. It is admitted fact that both the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence gave finding of fact against the petitioner that the welfare of the minor is to hand over the custody of the minor to the mother. It is also admitted fact that the age of the miner is less than five years. It is also admitted position of law of nature that the father is not a good substitute for mother love, affection and training which is well-needed to prepare minor daughters to shoulder their future responsibility can only be provided by mother and father cannot be a good substitute for her. Islam, in case of female miner, allowed custody to (sic) puberty. The Courts below had considered all the points to which their attention was invited and found that welfare of minor daughter, who was yet of tender age, required that she should be handed over to the custody of real mother. The Courts below in doing so, thus, had not acted in excess of their jurisdiction or acted illegally or with material irregularity. Orders of Courts below were neither suffering from non-reading or misreading of evidence. Even otherwise this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision of the Courts below while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. I am' fortified by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court PLD 1973 Lahore 600. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. I am fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1974 SCM R 523, PLD 1981 SC 522 and PLD 1981 SC 246, 1995 SCM R 1225. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not attributed any other disqualification to the respondent justifying the handing over her minor daughter to the petitioner when the daughter is of tender age of less than five years. I, therefore, see no good reason to interfere with the unanimous verdict of the two Courts below. I am, therefore, not (sic) but before dismissing the above petition However, I may observe that the petitioner being the father is entitled to see his child. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the original Family Court through an application for fixing time to allow him to see the child once in a month or two months after taking into consideration the convenience of both the parties and of the minor.
' With the above observations, the petition is dismissed in limine.
Petition, dismissed.