Law: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 7(1),5

Law: Guardian and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)

Section: 25

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965-------(. 7(1)---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S.25---West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5 & Sched.---Jurisdiction to hear guardianship cases---Provision of S.5, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, gives exclusive jurisdiction to Family Courts to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon matters specified in the Schedule, wherein guardianship is listed as Item No.6---Family Courts, thus, have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of guardianship cases---Family Court while dealing with guardianship cases, would follow procedure prescribed in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890---Trial Court being a Family Court had jurisdiction to decide the case of guardianship.--[Jurisdiction].Janat Bibi v. Ramzan and another 1991 CLC Note 239. at p.185 and Mst. Sajida Parveen v. The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others 1991 MLD 745 rel.Muhammad Hayat v. Additional District Judge, Okara PLD 1990 Lah. 350 ref.(b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Concurrent finding on question of fact by Courts below---Effect---Courts below after appraisal of evidence on record finding concurrently that interest and welfare of minor would lie in their custody being given to their mother---Even otherwise mother having not re-married and no allegations of immorality having been proved against her, she was best entitled to custody of minors--�Fact that mother was not possessed of sufficient means to educate or maintain minors properly was devoid of merit, for father was responsible to -maintain minors wherever they resided---Concurrent findings of Courts below were maintained with the modification that father would be provided opportunity by mother to meet the minors at least one weekend every month.JUDGMENT The facts leading to this Constitutional petition briefly are that the petitioner and respondent No.l were married in the year 1981 and two daughters namely, Bilquis Bibi and Aziz Bibi were horn out of the wedlock. Therefore, the present petitioner turned respondent No. 1 out of his house and kept the minor daughters with him.…