P L D 2012 Lahore 148 (PLP)

ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.

Brief facts are that respondents Nos.2 to 5 filed a suit for maintenance allowance. It was contested and after the settlement of issues and recording of evidence, the same was decreed by the Family Court, Mandi Baha-ud-Din vide judgment dated 19-11-2009. The decree-holders filed an execution petition wherein the defendant/judgment-debtor was arrested for his failure to satisfy the decree and after the expiry of period of one year he was set at liberty. The decree-holder filed a Fard Taleeqa. The Executing Court attached a house vide order dated 16-11-2011 and passed an order on 18-11-2011 for its auction. The order of attachment of the house and its auction has been assailed through this petition.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the house intended to be auctioned, is outside the territorial jurisdiction of Tehsil Malakwal district M.B. Din and that since the petitioner was not party to the suit, therefore, this property could not be attached and put to auction. It is further submitted that the judgment of the Family Court is to be executed under the provisions of Civil Procedure Court. It is lastly submitted that since the judgment debtor is alive and physically and mentally fit person, therefore, the decree can be executed against him and not against any other person.

3. Conversely, counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 submits that in case the judgment-debtor fails to execute the decree, his father shall be liable to pay the same.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and record perused.

5. The petitioner is the paternal grand-father of the minors/decree-holders. He has assailed the order of the Executing Court whereby a house has been attached for the satisfaction of the decree. Admittedly, the petitioner is a paternal grand-father of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and their father who is the judgment debtor is avoiding to satisfy the decree and hiding himself. The court had no alternative but to pass the impugned order. It is to be noted that the minors cannot be left merciless and unattended. Counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 places reliance on the judgment in the case of Haji Nizam Khan v. Additional "District Judge, Lyallpur and others PLD 1976 Lah. 930, in which is has been held as under:-- "It is from the above main provisions of the Islamic Law on the question of the obligations and rights of the opulent and needy relations in Muslim society that as corollary it has been unquestionably accepted that a grandfather in easy circumstances is bound to maintain and support his needy grand-children." Being fortified by the above view and in the circumstances of the instant case when the judgment debtor/father, who is the real son of the present petitioner is not available, the grandfather is bound to provide maintenance allowance to his grand-children. This petition has no force, hence the same is dismissed. K.M.Z./S-18/L Petition dismissed.