' Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that Gul Muhammad Tabassam (writ petitioner) filed an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, against his ex-wife Mst. Gulshan Ara (respondent No,1) for seeking custody of their children Muhammad Azad Gul aged 5 years, Muhammad Akash Gul aged 3-1/2 years and Muhammad Hassan Gul aged 6 months. The said application was' contested by his ex-wife. After framing relevant issues and recording evidence thereon the learned Guardian Judge (respondent No,3) dismissed the said application vide order dated 31-5-2000 (Annexure F).
' Petitioner's appeal against that order was also dismissed by respondent No,2, Additional District Judge, Multan vide (Annexure. G).
2. In this Constitutional petition both the aforesaid decisions are called in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contested that both the aforesaid judgments are against law and facts for the following reasons:--
(i) From the evidence produced on record it was established that the welfare and interest of the minors demanded that their custody should be made over to the petitioner; and
(ii) evidence was not correctly appraised and the impugned judgments suffer from non-reading and misreading of evidence.
4. The petition is contested by the learned counsel for respondent No,
1. Arguments heard; writ petition and its annexures perused.
5. Concurrent findings by the Family Court and the Appellate Court cannot be successfully assailed in writ jurisdiction unless the Courts had exceeded jurisdiction, acted without jurisdiction or findings were based on no evidence. Constitutional petition also does not lie to challenge an order on the ground that evidence in the case was not correctly appreciated because findings of facts recorded by Courts of A competent jurisdiction cannot be disturbed simply on the ground that another view could be possible on the same evidence.
6. High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of appeal and cannot substitute findings of facts recorded by the Courts below as such matters should be decided by the Courts invested with jurisdiction to decide them.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgments reveal that plausible reasons have been given therein in support of the conclusions arrived at.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to draw my attention to any portion of evidence, which was allegedly overlooked or was misread by any of the Courts below.
9. Neither there appears to be any misreading of evidence nor any material piece of evidence appears to have been overlooked by the Courts below.
' For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is without any merit, it is accordingly dismissed.