-Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance--Decreed without annual increase--Determination of period of maintenance allowance-

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 88
Present: Faisal Zaman Khan, J.
Mst. FAZEELAT HASSAN and another--Appellants
versus
MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL ANJUM and 2 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 17385 of 2021, decided on 7.11.2022.

Family Courts Act, 1964 (XXXV of 1964)--

----S. 14--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance--Decreed without annual increase--Determination of period of maintenance allowance--Execution proceedings--Entitlement for arrears of maintenance allowance--Challenge to--It has categorically been mentioned in paragraph No. 7 of plaint that respondent No. 1 deserted Petitioner No. 1 thus executing Court has rightly interpreted judgment and decree passed by Judge Family Court by holding that Petitioner No. 1 is entitled to arrears of maintenance allowance from 02.12.2013--Counsel for petitioner has not been able to highlight any jurisdiction defect or procedural impropriety in impugned order/judgment therefore no ground for interference is made out--Petition dismissed. [Para 6 & 7] A & B

Ch. Muhammad Abdul Rashid, Advocate for Petitioners.

Date of hearing: 7.11.2022.

Order

Through this petition, order dated 05.08.2020 and judgment dated 10.10.2020 passed by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively have been assailed. By virtue of the former order, while interpreting judgment and decree dated 19.06.2014 passed in favour of the petitioners/decree-holders, they have been held entitled to recover maintenance allowance from 02.12.2013 at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month per head with no annual increase and through the latter judgment, the same has been upheld.

2. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Courts below fell in error in determining the period of recovery of maintenance allowance by holding that petitioners are entitled to recover the arrears of maintenance allowance from 02.12.2013 when the cause of action accrued to them. He, while referring to the judgment and decree under execution submits that the suit was decreed as prayed for thus the observation made by the Courts below is not the correct interpretation of the said judgment and decree.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. A perusal of the available record would show that in Paragraph No. 5 of the plaint, it was the case of Petitioner No. 1 that one year prior to filing of the suit, when she was pregnant with Petitioner No. 2 she was deserted by Respondent No. 1. In continuation to this in Paragraph No. 7 of the plaint, it has been narrated that Respondent No. 1 deserted Petitioner No. 1 on 02.12.2013 and subsequent thereto, in Paragraph No. 10 thereof, it has been narrated that cause of action accrued to the petitioners a year ago and lastly it accrued to them on 02.12.2013.

5. In the above backdrop, a conjoint reading of Paragraph Nos. 5 & 7 of the plaint would show that it is the case of Petitioner No. 1 that she was deserted by Respondent No. 1 on 02.12.2013, i.e. a year ago however in order to confuse the issue in Paragraph No. 10, she has mentioned that cause of action, accrued to her a year back and lastly it accrued on 02.12.2013.

6. In the above backdrop, since it has categorically been mentioned in Paragraph No. 7 of the plaint that Respondent No. 1 deserted Petitioner No. 1 on 02.12.2013 thus the learned executing Court has rightly interpreted the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court by holding that Petitioner No. 1 is entitled to arrears of maintenance allowance from 02.12.2013.

7. For what has been discussed above, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to highlight any jurisdiction defect or procedural impropriety in the impugned order/judgment therefore no ground for interference is made out, as a sequel to which, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(Y.A.) Petition dismissed