MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 25.4.2000 of the Lahore High Court through which RSA No. 157 of 1983 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The dispute in this case is about the custody of minor Mst. Humera Khurshid. The petitioner is maternal grand-mother of the said minor. The mother of the minor died at the time of her birth who was with respondent No. 1-father. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, she was recovered through habeas petition and her custody was delivered to the petitioner. In her application tiled by respondent No. 1 before the learned Guardian Judge, Shorkot, a settlement was arrived at between the parties that on the attainment of age of seven years, the custody of the minor shall he given to the respondent and the petition filed by the respondent under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act was disposed of in the terms of said settlement.
3. After the said settlement, certain developments took place such as the respondent solemnized second marriage and the share of the minor in the amount left by her mother, who was serving lady, was deposited by the respondent in his own account against which objection was taken and he did not even abide by the decree of the Court and when his warrant for arrest was issued, then he deposited the said amount in the account of the minor.
4. The petitioner also instituted another application in the Court of learned Guardian Judge, Jhang that she should he appointed as guardian of the person of the minor and her property writ is still pending and is being contested by the respondent-father.
5. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent tiled application before the learned Guardian Judge, Shorkot for implementation and execution of the order based on settlement between the parties i.e., that the custody of the minor shall he given to him. The said application was contested on the ground that on account of the above developments and other circumstances, the welfare of the minor did not lie in giving her custody to respondent No. 1. The learned Guardian Judge, Shorkot did not entertain these pleas and declined to decide the same on the ground that he was to implement the order passed on the basis of the settlement between the parties according to which, on the attainment of age of seven years, the custody of the minor is to be delivered to the respondent, therefore, the said application was accepted through order dated 22.6.1998.
6. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge through order dated 8.2.1999 against which writ petition filed by her has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 25.4.2000 by the High Court, against which leave to appeal has been sought.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted:--
(1) That irrespective of any agreement or settlement between the parties , the Guardian Judge is hound under the law to decide the question of custody of the minor keeping in view her welfare, therefore, the learned Guardian Judge at Shorkot who passed order dated 22.6.1998 mechanically for implementation of the previous order based on settlement failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under the law to decide the question of the welfare of the minor particularly in view of the later developments as mentioned above;
(ii) That the learned Guardian Judge, Shorkot in the circumstances of this case should have referred the matter to the learned Guardian Judge, Jhang in whose Court the petitioner application seeking appointment as Guardian of the person and the property of the minor was pending.
7. Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia, the above contentions .
8. Till the disposal of the appeal, operation of the impugned judgment dated 25.4.2000 and orders passed by the Courts below shall remain suspended.