P L D 2026 Balochistan 84 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UD-DIN MENGAL, J.

The instant Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 ( the Constitution ), whereby the petitioner prayed as under: Accordingly, respectfully prayed that impugned letter No.285 dated 12-09-2025 passed/issued by Family Judge-III Quetta may kindly be set aside. Further prayed that the 1/4th of salary of petitioner may kindly be deducted attached in terms of decretal amount and rest of salary may kindly be ordered to be released in favour of petitioner, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. Any other relief which this Hon ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favour of petitioner.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, maintenance of herself and two minor daughters and recovery of dowry articles before the learned Family Court, Quetta, which was ex-parte decreed on 29th March 2013. The petitioner challenged the said decree before this Court, whereafter the matter was remanded; however, on appeal by respondent No.1, the Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the judgment of remand and restored the original ex parte decree of the Family Court.

3. Consequent upon restoration of the decree, respondent No.1 filed execution application before the learned Family Judge-II, Quetta ( trial Court ), which was accepted, vide impugned order dated 13th August 2025, in pursuance whereof a letter dated 12th September 2025 was issued to the State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi with directions to deduct 50% of his salary for satisfaction of the decretal amount.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned direction is arbitrary, contrary to law, and violative of natural justice, as the petitioner is already maintaining his present family consisting of wife and three children, such deduction would cause undue hardship; that respondent No.1 is financially well-off, being a former Senator and daughter of an Ex-Speaker of Balochistan Assembly, therefore, the impugned order warrants interference.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. It is an admitted position that the contention of the petitioner regarding his financial hardship or the alleged affluence of respondent No.1 is wholly irrelevant to the execution of a lawful decree, which remains binding. The Family Court, being empowered under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 to attach a portion of the judgment-debtor s salary in satisfaction of a decree for maintenance.

7. Even otherwise, it cannot be denied at all that a father is under legal, moral and religious obligation to maintain his children. In Islamic law, a father is under legal, moral and religious obligation to maintain his children till the age specified by law/sharia. Of great significance is the fact that such obligation is a diktat laid down in the Holy Quran that: And clothing and maintenance must be borne by the father in a fair manner." [AL-BAQARAH, 233]

8. Undeniably, the decree passed by the learned Family Court attained finality after affirmation by the Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The execution proceedings initiated thereupon are within the exclusive domain of the executing Court. The direction issued to the State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi/department of the petitioner for deduction of salary is a step in aid of execution and does not by any stretch of imagination, amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction warranting interference in constitutional jurisdiction.

9. On legal premises, under Section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 ( Act of 1964 ), family Court is competent to fix interim maintenance and remedy of appeal or revision against the interim order is barred in terms of Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 which stipulates that: No appeal or revision shall lie against an interim order passed by a Family Court.

10. The Act of 1964, being a special law, bars remedy of appeal or revision against interim order, therefore, when a statute specifically excludes a remedy, petition in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be held to be maintainable against the said order as it would amount to circumvent the intention of the legislature and frustrate the express provision of law. It is by now settled that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to challenge interlocutory or procedural orders passed during execution proceedings.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 13th August, 2025 and letter dated 12th September 2025, which has been issued in due exercise of lawful authority. The petition, being devoid of merits and not maintainable, is accordingly dismissed in limine. MQ/152/Bal. Petition dismissed.