| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1093 2015 SLD 1093 2015 PLJ 75 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 2956 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 12.3.2014.
MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, JUSTICE
Syed Jaffar Tayyar Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner.
W.P. No. 2956 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 12.3.2014.
MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, JUSTICE
Syed Jaffar Tayyar Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner.
MUHAMMAD AMIN
VS
JUDGE FAMILY COURT, SAHIWAL AND 3 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Family Courts Act, 1964 (XXXV of 1964)-- ----Ss. 13(3) & 17--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Suit for maintenance, decreed--Procedure to enforce decrees--Judgment debtor did not abide by undertaking and did not pay any amount--Asserted and produced before executing Court--Managed surety bond--Discretion was to be exercised at time of passing decree--Decree relating to money can be executed by Family Court only in manner laid down in Land Revenue Act, 1967--Validity--Money decree is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue only if Court so directs at time of passing decree--If no such direction has been made by Court it may follow any procedure thereafter to implement its money decree, including arrest of -debtor and attachment of his property--Executing Court resort to attaching and sale of property belonging to surety--Surety is as much bound by his undertaking as was, is -debtor--Both are collectively and severally liable to make payment to decree-holders--If -debtor is sent behind bars, such fact by itself would not absolve surety of his liability--At time, he wanted to save skin of -debtor, who is admittedly his close relative--In other words, be stuck his neck out and now he cannot be allowed to turn round to evade his liabilities arising from his being surety for -debtor--Petition was dismissed. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, JUSTICE---.--- Through this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 19.2.2013 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Sahiwal, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking to absolve him of the liability arising out of a surety bond executed by him, was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Mst. Abida Kausar and Mst. Sajida Kausar, the minors (Respondents Nos. 2 and 3) had instituted a suit for maintenance against Riaz Ahmad, Respondent No. 4, their father. The suit was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Sahiwal vide judgment and decree dated 23.2.2008. All in all, the aforementioned Riaz Ahmad was ordered to pay an amount of Rs.40,8000/- to the minors by way of maintenance, and he was ordered to pay future maintenance at the rate…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492