' CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.---This appeal, by leave, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Shariat Court on 26-2-2004 whereby a revision petition filed against the order passed by the Judge Family Court, Kotli was dismissed.
2. The facts are that Mst. Naheed Begum, wife of respondent No.3 Zulqarnain Khan, moved an application for the custody of minors in the Court of Judge Family Court, Kotli on 11-3-2003.
Meanwhile, she applied for temporary custody of the minors through an application which was allowed. The temporary custody was handed over to Mst. Naheed Begum, the mother of the minors, subject to furnishing of a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 (rupees ten lac) with the direction that the minors shall not be removed from the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The appellant herein furnished the bail bond before the trial Court and the minors were handed over to their mother Mst. Naheed Begum. On the relevant date i.e. 15-3-2003, neither Mst. Naheed Begum appeared nor the minors were brought before the Court. The Court ordered for confiscation of the bail bond executed by the appellant herein through two orders dated 15-3-2003 and 17-5-2003.
The aforesaid orders were challenged through a revision petition before the Shariat Court which was dismissed Hence, the appeal.
3. Mr. M. Yunus Tahir, the learned counsel representing the appellant, contended that after confiscation of the bond it was legally required that a notice for recovery of the aforesaid amount should have been issued to the appellant and thereafter further proceedings in this regard could be made. It was forcefully argued that no such notice was issued, therefore, whole proceedings taken by the trial Court were illegal as such the order passed in revision by the Shariat Court is also not maintainable.
4. Ch. M. Reaz Alam, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, argued that after confiscation of the bond notice was duly issued to the appellant who did not appear and a report was made that he has left the country, therefore, further proceedings were taken which are perfectly in accordance with law.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. It is admitted on behalf of the appellant that he stood a surety and also admitted to have furnished a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 whereupon temporary custody of the minors was handed over to Mst. Naheed Begum. It was also admitted that the minors were not produced as per requirement. The learned counsel also did not dispute the correctness of the order whereby the bond was confiscated. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that a notice was required to be issued to the appellant as to why the amount may not be recovered from him. A perusal of the record shows that after confiscation of the bond a notice was issued to the appellant which has been placed on record by the appellant himself. Thereafter, other necessary proceedings were taken as the appellant could not be served for being out of the country. The order dated 10-5-2003 supports the aforesaid version. The trial Court has undertaken all proceedings which are in accordance with law in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, revision filed before the Shariat Court was correctly dismissed by the learned Judge after taking all aspects factual as well as legal. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Shariat Court as such the appeal merits no consideration which is dismissed.