' Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner calls in question the order dated 14-1-2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Lahore whereby, revision petition filed by respondent No.3 Sardaran Bibi had been allowed and the order of the learned Guardian Judge-I, Lahore dated 12-11- 2003 had been set aside. The learned Guardian Judge-I, Lahore had ordered that the custody of petitioner's minor daughter Iqra Kaneez aged about 1-1/2 years who was living with her maternal grandmother be handed over to the petitioner. Aggrieved of the said order the maternal grandmother (respondent No.3) filed a revision petition and the learned Additional District Judge in his order dated 14-1-2004 had observed that since the mother of the minor had died, therefore, the right of her custody under the age of seven years passed to her mothe'r's mother. He also observed that the right of Hazanat was not an absolute right and could be deviated from in the peculiar circumstances of a case, if it was in the supreme interest of the minor. He observed that nothing had beeti brought on record where it could be stated that it was in the interest of the minor that her custody be given to the father in preference to her maternal grandmother. It is the said order dated 14-1-2004 which has been assailed in this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the child had been forcibly removed from his custody; that the petitioner being the father is the natural guardian who can easily look after the welfare of minor; that the maternal grandmother of the child (respondent No.3) was a lady of ill repute and living in a locality which did not have a good reputation.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel at considerable length.
4. It is not denied that the petitioner has already filed a petition under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1925 which is pending adjudication before the learned Guardian Judge. In the petitioners habeas corpus petition (Crl. Misc. No.255/H of 2003) wherein the minor had been produced in the Court: this Court had directed the parties to get their dispute settled in the Guardian Court. In the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction this Court cannot enter into realm of factual controversy. The grounds urged in support of the instant petition relate to factual aspects of the matter which can properly be looked into an adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence. This Court cannot re-empt the functions of the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not able to point out any illegality or impropriety much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge. There is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.