' NASIR-UL-MULK, J.---Out of the wedlock of Nazar Gul petitioner and Mst. Shamim, respondent No,3, five children were born. The marriage ended in a divorce and the children remained in the custody of the petitioner. Respondent No,3 applied to the Guardian Judge for the custody of all children, aged between 3-1/2 to 13-1/2 years. During pendency of the trial respondent No,3 applied for temporary custody of the youngest of the child Hassan Gul, aged three and a half years. The application was allowed and the temporary custody granted to respondent No,3 by order of 9-5- 1998. This order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner. The appeal was also turned down on 26-5-1998. Both these orders have been now impugned in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard in motion. His only argument was that the trial Court has erred in not recording evidence as required by section 13 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before making an order for temporary custody under section 12 of the Act.
3. The Guardian Judge is only required to make a probe into the facts so as to enable him to determine where the welfare of the child would lie. Both the Courts have found that the child, admittedly of the age of three and a half years, requires the love and affection of the mother at this tender age. The mother had also not re-married and is living with her brothers. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the mother is the natural guardian of the child, being below the age of seven. The Courts have, therefore, taken all the relevant facts into consideration before entrusting the temporary custody to the mother. Apart from raising the technical objection of non- recording of evidence the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring out any circumstance which would disentitle the mother to temporary custody or that would give preference to the father over the mother for the custody of the child. Not only that no illegality can be noticed in the impugned orders but on the facts of the case the equitable relief of issuing writ cannot be granted to the petitioner as no good reason has been shown as to why temporary custody of the child should remain with him in the presence of the mother, who is the natural guardian.
4. For these reasons the writ petition has no merits and is dismissed in limine.