| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 253 1991 SLD 253 1991 MLD 1321 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 699X6 of 1989, hearing Date : 20-2-1991.
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Cheshti for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Writ Petition No. 699X6 of 1989, hearing Date : 20-2-1991.
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Cheshti for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
MST. NASIM KHATOON AND OTHERS
VS
SYED IRSHAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS
Law: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964
Section: 14,13(4)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 7
(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 14---Appeal---Competency to file---Order regarding objection petition to execution of decree of Family Court to be construed as decision and thus appealable. Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 provides for appeals not only against the decrees but also against the decisions of the Family Court. The expression "decision" appearing in section 14 has to be construed ejusdum generis so as to provide for appeals against final and not interlocutory orders/decisions. In the present case, the order passed by the Family Court cannot be said to be interim or interlocutory by nature. By this order the objection petition filed by -debtor was finally rejected and as such proceedings to that extent, culminated. This order, be construed as a "decision" within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act and was as such appealable. Syed Muhammad Raza Shah v. Sayeda Salma Gilani and another PLD 1976 Lah. 1015 ref. (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 13(4)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXII, R.7---Decree for maintenance---Execution of decree---Compromise on behalf of minors ---Effect-- Petitioners were minors when earlier execution petition was withdrawn cm basis of compromise---Family Court had acted on basis of statement made by minors' mother who was acting as their next friend, without ascertaining whether such compromise was for the benefit of minors---Provisions of O. XXXII, R.7, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, though not strictly applicable to proceedings before Family Court, yet salutary principle contained therein, could not have been ignored by the Court---Order of compromise passed by Family Court and the statement made by mother of minors on their behalf could not be construed as rendering decree for maintenance itself as ineffective for all times to come-- Petitioners in earlier execution petition had claimed maintenance for a specific period and on no principle withdrawal of that execution petition could be taken as a bar to maintainability of subsequent execution petition which related to subsequent period---Subsequent execution petition was thusβ¦
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