PLD 2016 Lah. 622
* Minors filed suit for maintenance allowance against their father which was decree d---Judgment debtor (father) was sent to civil prison till the satisfaction of decree and property belonging to the grandfather was ordered to be attached---Contention of grandfather was that he was not party to the suit and decree could not be executed against him---Validity---Liability of grandfather to maintain his grandchildren would start when father was poor and infirm and mother was also not in a position to provide maintenance to her children---Such liability of grandfather was dependent upon the fact that he was in easy circumstances---If father and mother were alive then grandfather could not be held responsible for maintenance of his grandchildren unless it was first determined that he was in easy circumstances---family court was bound to first adjudicate and determine such fact which could not be done unless he was a party to the suit having fair opportunity to explain his status and position---No decree could be executed against a person who was not a party to the proceedings---Executing court could not go beyond the decree ---decree passed by the family court would remain in field to the extent of actual judgment-debtor even after suffering civil prison unless it was satisfied---Process of execution of decree could not shift towards the grandfather only on account of mere fact that judgment-debtor had failed to discharge his liability under the decree --family court could adopt the procedure provided in civil Procedure Code, 1908 for execution of its decree ---Judgment-debtor could be sent to civil prison for one year--Impugned order for attachment of property of grandfather was un-warranted by law which was declared illegal and unlawful---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
0 comments:
Post a Comment