*2014 SCMR 1481*
*Grand Father is responsible to pay maintenance of his grand childrens...!!*
Judgments on Maintenance by Grandfather:
(PLD 2012 Lahore 148)
(PLD 2011 Lahore 610)
(PLD 2010 Lahore 119)
(2005 SCMR 1293)
(2004 YLR 616)
(2016 PLD 622 LAHORE)
Ss. 13 & 5, Sched---Maintenance allowance---Grand father, liability of---execution petition---Procedure---execution of a decree against a person who was not party to the suit---Scope---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.
*Judgments on Maintenance by Grandfather*
*PLD 2012 Lahore 445*
*PLD 2012 Lahore 148*
*PLD 2011 Lahore 610*
*PLD 2010 Lahore 119*
*2005 SCMR 1293*
*2004 YLR 616*
If some more effort is made few other judgments may also be found.
*2016 PLD 622 LAHORE*
Ss. 13 & 5, Sched---Maintenance allowance---Grand father, liability of---execution petition---Procedure---execution of a decree against a person who was not party to the suit---Scope---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