' Petitioner has assailed the findings of respondents Nos.l and 2 in Constitutional jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has validly married to respondent No,3 and from his loins two daughters were born namely Mst. Munnaza Idrees, now aged 15 years who is with respondent No,3 and Mst. Saadia, who is in custody of the petitioner.
3. Petitioner moved an application before respondent No,2 Guardian Judge under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of Mst. Munnazza Idrees. On the other hand respondent No,3 made a similar application for the custody of his second daughter Mst. Saadia now aged 5 years.
4. The Guardian Judge vide his judgment dated 8-10-1997 refused the' application of the petitioner but allowed that of respondent No,3. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No,1 on 30-4-1998 maintaining the order of the Guardian Judge.
5. The sole ground on which respondents Nos.1 and 2 allowed respondent No,3 the custody of Mst.
Saadia was that the petitioner had married Yasin, who was a stranger, not related to the minor within the prohibitory decree.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that irrespective of the fact that the wife marries a person not related within the prohibitory decree, the minors' welfare has to be a paramount consideration and the decision has to be made keeping this element in view. It is further contended that vide Exh.R.I. Which was an agreement, the father had given an undertaking that he would not claim the daughters till they attained the puberty and that the mother has a right of Hizanat. In support of his arguments he relies on Muhammad Yousaf v. Anis Bibi PLD 1998 Lah. 67 and Mst.
Nighat Firdous v. Khadim Hussain 1998 SCM R 1593. In the first ruling it was a judgment of at variance and further the facts and circumstances were different from the present case. In the second citation minor was with the maternal aunt preference was given to her to get the custody than the father. The aforesaid two cases are, therefore, distinguishable.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No,3 has relied on Mst. Nazir v. Hafiz Ghulam Mustafa etc. 1981 SCM R 200 to contend that the Courts have always inclined to give custody of the daughters to the father where the mother has married a person not related to child within the prohibitory decree.
Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn my attention to the statement of the petitioner wherein she had admitted that the younger brother of Yasin, her second husband also resides with them.
8. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction and he has failed to show that the Courts below misread or ignored some important piece of evidence which went to the root of the case. He has also been unable to point out any irregularity.
9. For the aforesaid discussion, I do not see any strong reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments of respondents Nos.-1 and 2. Consequently, this petition having no merit is dismissed.
' However, the petitioner will be at liberty to move the Guardian Judge for seeking an arrangement whereby she can regularly meet her daughter to ensure that filial affection remain interrupted.