1989 PLP 955 (MLD)

Khurshid Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner. Salim‑ud‑Din Aftab for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 13th November, 1988. Through this constitutional petition, Muhammad Mian petitioner wants this Court to declare the order dated 19‑11‑1987 of Judge Family Court, Bahawalpur, whereby warrants of arrest against him were issued, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. Mst. Anees Begum respondent is wife of the petitioner. Muhammad Ahmad respondent is son of the petitioner and Mst. Kaniz Fatima respondent is daughter of the petitioner. Mst. Anew and two others, respondents, 2 to 4, had filed suit for maintenance against the petitioner‑The trial Court decreed the suit on 5‑11‑1986. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. The respondents then filed petition for the execution of the decree. Since the decretal amount was not paid, so the trial Court issued warrants of arrest against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 19‑11‑1987. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on section 13(3) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and on Naseer Khan v. Tahira Rashida reported as 1986 CLC 2381 to contend that the procedure prescribed for execution of the money decree under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 has not been resorted to by the Judge Family Court rendering the impugned order to be illegal and without lawful authority.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 has supported the impugned order.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. 1 have not been able to pursuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned Judge Family Court/executing Court, made all efforts to recover the decretal amount before issuing warrants of arrest against the petitioner. The learned Judge Family Court issued orders for the attachment of the property of the petitioner but by transferring his property before the same could be attached, the petitioner frustrated the orders for the attachment of his property. He did not pay the instalments; he did not even care to appear before the Court. I feel that by his conduct, the petitioner had forced the Court to issue warrants of arrest against him. Since the decree was passed by Judge Family Court, Bahawalpur, respondent No.1, therefore, he was competent to execute it and recover the same as arrears of land revenue. For that purpose, he could issue warrants of arrest against the petitioner. The petitioner is even today not prepared to pay the decretal amount to his minor children, respondents 3 and

4. He is not entitled to any assistance from this Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

6. For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./M‑1078/LPetition dismissed.