-Rights of father--Second marriage of father would not discredit him from seeking visitation and to spend time with his son--

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 849

Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 (VIII of 1890)--

----S. 25--Petition for custody of minor--Visitation schedule--Welfare of minor--Rights of father--Second marriage of father--Challenge to--There is no allegation that father is not maintaining minor-- Petitioner has opted to file constitutional petition after almost 10 months of order of appellate court and nothing has been alleged therein regarding any practical problem or difficulty in implementation of visitation schedule--Submissions made were already raised, adverted too and dealt with by courts below--Second marriage of father would not discredit him from seeking visitation and to spend time with his son--This sort of agitative, non-constructive, non-cooperative and unkind disposition, demonstrated by petitioner, is highly detrimental to upbringing and personality of minor--Petition dismissed.                                                 [Pp. 850 & 851] A, B & C

Malik Aftab Abbas Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 5.11.2020.

 PLJ 2021 Lahore 849
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Asim Hafeez, J.
FATIMA ABDUL WADOOD--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KHANEWAL etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 15200 of 2020, decided on 5.11.2020.

Order

Petitioner assails judgment and decree dated 03.12.2019, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 7.10.2019 of learned trial Judge, in exercise of jurisdiction vested under Guardian and wards Act, 1890 was affirmed. The request of the Respondent No. 3 father of minor to deliver custody of the minor was declined, however visitation schedule was settled. Petitioner is precisely aggrieved of the terms of visitation schedule.

2. Learned counsel submits that welfare of the minor was not the consideration while settling the visitation schedule, whereby substantially the custody of the minor was handed to the Respondent No. 3. Adds that Respondent No. 3 had a second marriage, which would literally mean handing custody of the minor to the stepmother. Learned counsel referred to the cases of Saima Ahmed v. Tanvir Ahmed and others (2009 SCMR 1062), Tahira Zaib v. Ghaffar Ahmed and 2 others (2017 CLC 96) and Zahida Tahira v. Javed Iqbal and others (2019 YLR 785).

3. The welfare of the minor was substantially considered by the courts below, whereby request of the father to have permanent custody of minor was declined. Rights of the father to meet and live with minor - for such period as allowed in the visitation schedule - cannot be denied. There is no allegation that father is not maintaining the minor. I have examined the visitation schedule and do not find any illegality, perversity or defect therein. Petitioner has opted to file instant constitutional petition after almost 10 months of the order of learned appellate court and nothing has been alleged therein regarding any practical problem or difficulty in the implementation of the visitation schedule - in which case the option has been provided under paragraph 20 of the Judgment dated 07.10.2019. The submissions made were already raised, adverted too and dealt with by the courts below. The judgments referred by learned counsel for petitioner are distinguishable, which are not applicable to the facts of this case. Mere second marriage of the father would not discredit him from seeking

visitation and to spend time with his son. I am constrained to hold that this sort of agitative, non-constructive, non-cooperative and unkind disposition, demonstrated by the petitioner, is highly detrimental to the upbringing and personality of the minor. I do not find any reason to interfere in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

4. This petition is devoid of merits and same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Y.A.)  Petition dismissed