M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 on 25.04.1997 and out of the wedlock a child namely Hassan Javed Awan was born on 3.07.1998 but due to their differences respondent No. 1 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on 1.03.1999, subsequently, on 13.09.1999 she also filed a suit for recovery of dowry and suit for recovery of maintenance. Petitioner had also filed a suit for restoration of conjugal rights on 15.05.1999 and the suit of the parties were consolidated and the same were dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1.04.2000 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi. However, suit for recovery of maintenance to the extent of minor Hassan Javed was decreed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from January 1999 till date and onward in future till he becomes major. None of the parties challenged the judgment and decree dated 1.04.2000 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi by filing an appeal before the Appellate Court.
2. That on 7.11.2000 respondent No. 1 filed an execution petition for recovery of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- w.e.f. January 1999 onwards. During the pendency of the execution petition respondent No. 1 filed an application for enhancement of maintenance @ Rs.
3,000/- per month before the learned Executing Court stating therein that at the time of passing the -decree for maintenance and institution of suit minor was a suckling baby but afterwards joined the school and now is student of Ideal Cambridge School, Satellite Town Rawalpindi only the monthly school expenses of the minor are Rs. 3300/- so the amount of maintenance may be enhanced. The learned Judge Family Court in an execution proceedings enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/-per month.
3. That both the parties being aggrieved from the order dated 3.07.2002 challenged the same before the learned District Judge, petitioner filed civil revision and being aggrieved from the enhancement respondent No. 1 filed appeal being aggrieved from not enhancing the less than the amount claimed by her. Learned Addl. District Judge vide impugned order dated 19.02.2004 dismissed both the appeal as well as revision.
4. That the order dated 3.07.2002 passed by the learned Judge Family Court in the capacity of an Executing Court and order dated 19.02.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has been assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executing Court cannot modify decree and the learned Judge Family Court fell an error in enhancing the amount of compensation in the execution proceedings. He placed reliance on case of Mst. Naseem Akhtar & 4 others v.
Shalimar General Insurance Company (1994 994 SCMR 22) and Mst. Shim Majid v. Subaktagin Majid & another (1984 CLC 1531).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Courts below are just and proper and the original amount of maintenance allowed by the learned Judge Family Court is meager in the prevailing circumstances of the case.
7. The decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.
1,000/- per month had become final as the same was not challenged by either of the parties before the apex Court and the Executing Court has no option but to execute it as it was passed. The Executing Court could not go behind the decree sought to be executed and similarly it had no jurisdiction to reconsider the liability of any party or reconsider the law for that purpose. Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 3.07.2002 passed by the learned Judge Family Court in capacity of an Executing Court and the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi in civil revision filed by the petitioner are declared to be illegal and without unlawful authority and the same are accordingly set aside. However, respondent No. 1 would be at liberty to claim maintenance from the petitioner at enhanced rate by filing a fresh suit for recovery of the same. No order as to costs. .