' NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.--- The petitioner Mst. Shamim Ara is the mother of Muhammad .Farooq who was married with one Mst. Najma Gul and during the wedlock the respondent No,1 daughter was born who shall be referred to as the minor daughter. Through a judgment and decree dated 29-4-1998 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Faisalabad maintenance allowance was awarded to the respondent No,1 Rs,1,000/- per month with an annual 20% increase. This judgment and decree dated 29-4-1998 was upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 25-2-1999. Execution proceedings for the recovery of maintenance allowance before the learned Judge Family Court were commenced by the respondent No,1. Muhammad Farooq did not comply with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court and was arrested in the execution proceedings under the orders of the learned Executing Court and was produced before the learned Judge Family Court/Executing Court ultimately on 8-12-2000.
2. The petitioner who is the mother of the judgment-debtor Muhammad Farooq furnished a surety bond dated 8-12-2000 before the learned Judge Family Court/Executing Court by contending that out of the decretal amount a sum of Rs,25,000/-has been paid to the decree-holder and that she is bound to pay the remaining decretal amount. The petitioner furnished this surety bond by supporting her Property No,P-119 situated in Khasra No,2/7 Squar No,48 in Chak No,213-B, Khayaban Colony Faisalabad of the value of Rs,20,00,000/-. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner also appeared before the learned executing court on 8-12-2000 and got recorded her statement that if the judgment-debtor Muhammad Farooq does not pay the decretal amount till 22-12-2000 in cash, she would be bound to make the , payment of the decretal amount failing which her property be confiscated.
3. This furnishing of surety bond by the petitioner is an undisputed fact. The judgment-debtor was accordingly ordered to be released by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 8-12-2000. The judgment-debtor Muhammad Farooq as well as the respondent No,1 appeared before the learned Executing Court on 1-11-2008 and the judgment-debtor stated that he is not in a position to make the payment of the maintenance allowance as decreed. The learned Executing Court sent the judgment-debtor to eivil imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned Executing Court further recorded that if the decretal amount is paid by the judgment-debtor in the meantime he be released.
4. The petitioner moved an application before the learned Executing Court on 20-12-2010 for recalling of the order dated 1-11-2008 as passed by the learned Executing Court. It was contended in the application by the petitioner that she stood surety only to the recovery of Rs,53,200/-which was due at the time of furnishing of surety bond by her and that the order dated 1-11-2008 be recalled and her property as bounded through the surety bond dated 8-12-2000 be released from the liability.
5. The learned Executing Court after getting a reply of the application from the respondent No,1 dismissed the application of the petitioner through an order dated 24-5-2011. The petitioner preferred a Civil Revision against the order dated 24-5-2011 of the learned Judge Family Court/Executing Court which Civil Revision came up for hearing before a learned Additional Judge and has been dismissed through an order dated 27-1-2012.
6. Through the instant writ petition both the, orders of the two courts below i,e, order dated 24-5- 2011 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Faisalabad and the order dated 27-1-2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad are assailed.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment-debtor had served a period of one year in the civil imprisonment and that the petitioner only stood surety for the amount which was due on 8-12-2000 under the decree passed in favour of the respondent No,1 for the recovery of maintenance and this amount according to the learned counsel was Rs,53;200/- and that the petitioner was not at all under an obligation to satisfy all the amount due uptil now as the maintenance allowance awarded to the respondent No, 1 . It is next contended that the orders passed by the two courts below rejecting the application for recalling the order dated 1-11-2008 are illegal. In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments reported as SHAW WALLACE & CO. V. SUNDAR SINGH (AIR 1930 LAHORE 575) and JAYAPPA LOKAPPA NARSINGANAWAR v. SHIVANGOUDA DYAMANGOUDA PATIL (AIR 1928 BOMBAY 42) to contend that the surety bond is to be construed strictly and the petitioner was not liable for making the payment of the amount exceeding Rs,53,200/-which was due on 8-12-2000 when the petitioner furnished the surety bond to the learned Executing Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the impugned orders passed by the two courts below be set aside and the writ petition be allowed as prayed for.
8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed on record the copy of the judgment and decree which was passed in the matter and when the attention of the learned counsel was drawn to this fact the learned counsel contends that there was no necessity for him to place on record the same. The surety bond which the petitioner submitted before the learned Executing Court on 8- 12-2000 has however been placed on the record and has been read with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not mentioned in the surety bond that it is only for Rs,53,200/-. It is categorically 'undertaken in the surety bond dated 8-12-2000 that the remaining decretal amount is the liability of the petitioner to pay in case her son Muhammad Farooq does not make the payment of the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the surety bond was only to the extent of Rs,53,200/-is therefore not borne out from the record and is not entertainable. It is also manifest that the petitioner stood surety by supporting surety bond with her property mentioning its value of Rs,20,00,000/-in the bond itself. The order dated 1-11-2008 has been perused and it is an order directing the sending of the judgment-debtor in the civil prison for the period of one year. It is after a lapse of more than two years that the petitioner moved an application dated 20-12-2010 before the learned Executing Court for recall of the order dated 1-11- 2008. In the first instance there is no provision in the Family Courts Act for the review or recall of the order passed by the Family Courts. The application on the face of it as moved by the petitioner was not legally competent. The provisions of A C.P.C. Have been specifically excluded from application to the proceedings under the Family Courts Act as per section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964. The learned Executing Court recorded the following reasons in the order dated 24-5-2011 for rejecting the application of the petitioner:--- Counsel for decree-holder/respondent contended that applicant wants to get her surety discharged and regarding this fact she has given application earlier which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge on 11-5-2009 with costs Rs, 20000/- and now again the surety filed same application. The surety is bound to pay decretal amount hence application be. Rejected.
' Arguments heard, record perused.
' Perusal of record .... Mother of judgment-debtor, gave her surety for satisfaction of judgment and decree, but the judgment-debtor is not paying decretal amount. The applicant's application on the same point has already been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, predecessor of this court, on 11-5-2009 with cost Rs,20000/-. Perusal of the record shows that the judgment-debtor and surety are trying to avoid payment of decretal amount and. Filing frivolous applications to prolong the matter. The order dated 1-11-2008 is legal order within the four corners of law. The applicant failed to give any valid reason to recall the order dated 1-11-2008, hence the instant application is hereby rejected. The judgment-debtor is given last opportunity to pay decretal amount for 21-6- 2011 otherwise property of the surety will be auctioned for the satisfaction of the decree".
' The perusal order sheet wherein the order dated 1-11-2008 has been recorded also reflects the order dated 21-10-2008 which speaks of the rejection of some Civil Revision in the matter. The petitioner has not placed on record the orders passed by the revisional court which is reflected in the order dated 21-10-2008. The petitioner has also not `produced a copy of the judgment and decree with the instant writ petition which could have facilitated the consideration of the matter by this Court for appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge/Executing Court in the order dated 24-5-2011 also made reference to the order dated 11-5- 2011 whereby the application for the discharge of surety moved by the petitioner was dismissed with costs of Rs,20,000/-and this order dated 11-5-2009 has also not been placed on the record by the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge in the order dated 27-1-2012 observed as follows:--- "The learned executing court observed that the present petitioner was surety for the payment of entire decretal amount so; her application for restoration of property was rejected vide order dated 24-6-2002, which order was assailed through appeal before the learned A.D.J., Faisalabad that had dismissed the appeal and maintained the order dated 24-6-2002, vide order dated 23- 9-2003. The judgment dated 23-9-2003 was not assailed before the Honorable High Court so; the same attained finality. Afterwards, the petitioner filed similar application before the learned executing court that had rejected the same vide order dated 18-7-2005, which order was assailed through appeal before the then A.D.J., Faisalabad who had dismissed the appeal vide order dated 8-11-2005. The judgment dated 8-11-2005 was not challenged before the Honorable High Court.
The judgment-debtor (Muhammad Farooq had ,again filed similar application before the learned executing court ,that had dismissed the same with special costs Rs,20,000/-, vide order dated 11- 5-2009 and appeal against said order was also dismissed vide order of the then learned A.D.J., Faisalabad dated 10-7-2009. In the light of aforementioned facts, which have been concealed in the instant revision petition, the application filed by the petitioner for recalling of order dated 1-11- 2008 was not entertain able. Hence, there has not been found any jurisdictional error, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction."
The petitioner has not produced all the orders referred to by the learned Additional District Judge in the above para produced of the order dated 27-1-2012. The respondent is admittedly the minor daughter of the judgment-debtor for whose maintenance allowance a decree was passed way back on 29-4-1998 @ Rs,1000/-per month with 20% annual increase and which judgment and decree was confirmed by the learned appellate .Court vide judgment and decree dated 25-2-1999 as per facts narrated in para-2 of the instant writ petition.
10. The petitioner in order to save the skin of her son and for denying the recovery of maintenance allowance in favour of the respondent No,1 is having recourse to different applications and proceedings which are being repeatedly rejected by the- courts below and without placing all the orders so far passed in the matter and also without producing a copy of the judgment and decree passed in the matter by the learned Judge Family Court with the instant writ petition, has sought the setting aside of the impugned orders passed by the two courts below. The petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court. The surety bond executed by her before the learned Judge Family Court is without any restrictions and covers the entire decretal amount recoverable by the respondent No,1 for her maintenance.
11. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in the first instance under the Family Courts Act and has no relevance at all to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and is of no help to the case being argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
12. In the exercise of my Constitutional jurisdiction I am not persuaded to interfere in the orders passed by the two courts below particularly due to the conduct of the petitioner before this Court as well. The instant Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.