-Written reply within stipulated period--Application for striking-off defence--Petitioner assailed vires of judgments/orders passed by learned Courts below, whereby, his application for striking-off defence of Respondent No. 3 was dismissed concurrently-

 PLJ 2024 Lahore (Note) 5
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, J.
MUHAMMAD AZHAR--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 13380 of 2023, decided on 7.9.2023.

Family Courts Act, 1964 (XXXV of 1964)--

----Family Courts Act, 1964--R. 22 of Family Courts rules, 1965--Written reply within stipulated period--Application for striking-off defence--Petitioner assailed vires of judgments/orders passed by learned Courts below, whereby, his application for striking-off defence of Respondent No. 3 was dismissed concurrently--Respondent No. 3 could not file written reply within stipulated period as prescribed by Family Courts Act, 1964--Petitioner moved an application for striking-off defence of respondent No. 3--The Trial Court after obtaining its reply and hearing arguments of both side, dismissed same--He preferred a time barred appeal which also met same fate and dismissed by learned appellate Court--Written reply on behalf of respondent No. 3 has be filed--Trial Court shall definitely decide case after observing all procedure including recording evidence of parties once for all--This petition dismissed.

                                                                       [Para 2 & 4] A, B, C & D

Kh. Qaisar Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 7.9.2023.

Order

Through this Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 1973, the petitioner assailed the vires of judgments/orders dated 27.04.2023 & 05.08.2023 passed by learned Courts below, whereby, his application for temporary custody of the minor was dismissed concurrently.

2. Facts in brevity are that petitioner filed an application for the custody and visitation of his minor daughter namely Rida Azhar aged about 04 years on 15.10.2022. Alongwith the main petition, the petitioner also filed an application for interim custody of the minor. The learned trial Court after obtaining its reply and hearing arguments of both side, dismissed the same vide order/judgment dated 27.04.2023. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a time barred appeal which also met the same fate and dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment/order dated 05.08.2023. Being dis-satisfied the petitioner filed the instant Constitutional Petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at full length and perused the record with his able assistance.

4. In guardianship cases welfare of the minor was the paramount consideration. At present, the minor, who is aged about 04 years, is residing with her real mother i.e. Respondent No. 3. The petitioner in his application for interim custody has not mentioned whether it is in the welfare of the minor to handover her interim custody to him or there is any question of danger to her life and health while residing with Respondent No. 3. The learned trial Court while dismissing his application also framed a visitation schedule. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, or mis-reading and non-reading of record on the part of lower fora.

5. For what has been discussed above, this petition having no force/substance is dismissed in-limine. No order as to costs.

(M.A.B.)         Petition dismissed