Mst. Karim Khatoon, Respondent No, 3 was married to Muhammad Iqbal, present writ petition, who had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on 23.9.2002 against the present writ petitioner in the Court of Judge Family, Court, Liaqatpur, whereas Muhammad Iqbal had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 26.6.2002 against Mst. Karim Khatton. Another suit for recovery of dower was also filed by Mst. Karim Khatoon against the aforesaid writ petitioner. On 21.10.1999 in the suit filed for recovery of dower the parties effected a compromise. According to the terms and conditions of the compromise. Muhammad Iqbal, writ petitioner had promised to give 4 kanals of lands from his ownership, as an additional dower subject to the abandonment of all the claims by the aforesaid plaintiff. It was further stated by Muhammad Iqbal, defendant in that offer of compromise that in case of obtaining divorce the plaintiff, Mst. Karim Khatoon would return the property in dispute, in lieu of Zare Khulla and would not be competent to sell it out. This statement of Muhammad Iqbal was accepted by Mst. Karim Khatoon, plaintiff and the suit was decreed on the basis of that compromise on 29.5.2000. As Muhammad Iqbal, had fialed to fulfill his prmise, so Mst. Karim Khatoon filed an execution petition on 7.6.2001. Muhammad Iqbal, the present writ petitioner filed an objection petition by asserting that as decree holder had failed to live with him so she was not entitled to get the decree executed. The objection petition was pending for hearing when an order was passed by learned Court, seized of the execution application, on 31.5.2002 which had accepted the prayer of Mst. Karim Khatoon with regard to the alienation of 4 kanals of promised lands. The writ petitioner filed a revision before the learned Additional District Judge, Liaqtpur against that order with the plea that the learned executing Court had failed to decide the objection petition of the petitioner and that the condition of the compromise was violated by the decree holder herself, therefore, the execution petition could not be entertained by the aforesaid executing Court any more. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the revision petition on 28.2.2003 hence this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has pleaded that the learned executing Court has failed to consider the terms sand conditions of the compromise. As per learned counsel, the plaintiff decree holder, Mst. Karim Khatoon had promised to reside with the petitioner/judgment debtor. As she had not fulfilled that compromise so. the execution petition was not competent. It has further been argued that the execution petition was to be filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge and that the execution petition before the Judge Family Court was not maintainable. To support his contentions, he has referred to 2003 CLC 10 (Mst. Arshad Bibi versus Ali Muhammad and another) and PLJ 1990 Peshawar 1 (DB) (Muhammad Farid Khan versus Civil Judge 1st Class Abbottabad and 3 others).
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has replied that the writ petitioner had taken another wife and was residing with her and he had himself deserted the respondent, who was living apart from him due to his act and conduct. A suit filed for recovery of maintenance allowance was also decreed against the writ petitioner. The direction to pay the maintenance allowance as also not being complied with by the writ petitioner and the execution petition was rightly filed in the Court of Judge Family Court.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the compromise dated 29.5.2000 in the statement of Muhammad Iqbal, no condition was imposed through offer by him with regard to the putting up the residence of Mst. Karim Khatoon in his house. Mst. Karim Khatoon, respondent had accepted the statement of Muhammad Iqbal and had promised to fulfill those conditions as contained in the deposition of Muhammad Iqbal, the present writ petitioner. So, the main contention of the learned counsel for the writ petition has loss his significance as there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the compromise, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot complain the refusal to live with him by Mst. Karim Khatoon. So for, the contention of the learned counsel that the execution petition was not wrongly filed and could not be filed in the Family Court, is not legally sustainable in law. According to subsection (4) of Section 30 of the Family Courts Act 1964, the decree has to he executed by the Court passing it or any other Civil Court as District Judge may by special or general order direct. The execution petition, which was filed before the learned Judge Family Court;, was the Court who had passed the decree, therefore, it was entertainable and competent. There was no lack of jurisdiction vested in the aforesaid Court. Therefore, this objection of the writ petitioner is also devoid of any force.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.