words per minute
7
ShaktiDahiya
00:00
Speed
The petitioner is aggrieved of the conditional order dated 26 July 2013 passed by the learned Judge Family Court only to the extent whereby his visitation tights qua his minor children were made subject to submission of two surety bonds in the sum of Rs10,000 each with two local sureties for the satisfaction of court. Facts of the case in brief are the respondent No.2 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and custody of minors which was contested by the petitioner by filing written statemen custody of minors which was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement During the proceedings of the suit, vide order dated 04 July 2013 the petitioner got recorded his statement that he has no objection in decreeing the suit of respondent No.2 for dissolution of marriage and custody of minors provided he was given visitation rights qua the minors. Vide order dated 26 July 2013 learned counsel for respondent No.2 got recorded the statement on her behalf that respondent No.2 has no objection to accede to the offer of the petitioner with regard to visitation rights of the minors and in the light of said statement, the learned Judge Family Court besides decreeing the suit of respondent No.2 for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of Khula also granted visitation rights to the petitioner in the following terms.
"So far as the suit of plaintiff for custody of minor plaintiffs NO.2 & 3 is concerned, the same is also decreed in the light of written statement filed by the defendant as well as his statement recorded on 4 July 2013. Whereas, in the light of statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiff recorded on today and by considering the request of defendant mentioned in para 16 of his written statement as well as in the interest of justice his prayer for visitation rights of minors plaintiff no. 2 & 3 is also allowed and defendant is held entitled to meet his children as and when he came to Pakistan for two times in a month subject to advance intimation of 24 hours to plaintiff No.1 and submission of two surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 each with two local sureties for the satisfaction of court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order requiring the petitioner to submit two surety bonds of such a huge amount is against his fundamental rights that the petitioner is the real father of the minors and is so conscious of their welfare that instead of dragging them into litigation he not only got recorded the statement that the minors may be allowed to remain in custody of their mother but also volunteered to pay an amount of Rs.50,000 per month per child as their maintenance that to see his minor children is the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by Islam and the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the same cannot be restricted by imposing such condition of submission of surety bonds in particular. When respondent No.2 did not show any apprehension of removing the minors from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by the petitioner; that the impugned order is illegal, ultra vires , void ab initio and is liable to be set-aside.