1. ' The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 20-8-1998 passed by the learned I.-A.D.J. Karachi Central in Civil Revision No,14 of 1998 whereby he set aside the order, dated 28-5-1998 passed by the learned VIII-Family Court Central Karachi in Execution No,22 of 1997 arising out of Family Suit No,823 of 1994.
2. ' Briefly stated the petitioner No,1 filed Family Suit No,823 of 1994 for maintenance for herself and her two children. This suit was contested by the respondent No,1 who was her husband and ultimately the suit was decreed on 16-5-1996. The operative part of the judgment, dated 16-5-1996 reads as under: -- "I decree the suit only to the extent of maintenance for plaintiff No,1 at the rate of Rs,1,500 per month and Rs,800 per month per child from November, 1991 and disallow the claim for dower amount with no order as to cost."
3. ' This judgment was challenged in Family Appeal No,14 of 1996 which was dismissed by the learned III-A.D.J. Karachi Central on 14-4-1998. This was followed by passing of order, dated 28 May, 1998 passed by the learned Family Court in Execution proceedings No,22 of 1997. The learned Executing Court ordered that the writ of attachment be issued against the respondent No,1 and accordingly the entire salary of the respondent No,1 was attached by the respondent No,3 being his employer.
4. Aggrieved by this order the respondent No,1 preferred Civil Revision No,14 of 1998 which was disposed of on 20-8-1998. This was allowed by the learned I-A.D.J. Karachi Central and it was ordered, inter alia, that the respondent No,2 should release the salary of the respondent No, 1 . The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and has prayed that this may be set aside on two grounds namely that the petitioner who was not served with notice was condemned unheard and secondly the revision itself was not competent in view of the law laid down in Syed Maqsood Ali v. Soofia Naushaba and 2 others 1986 CLC 620, Mst. Farida Parwin v. Qadeeruddin Ahmed Siddiqui PLD 1971 Karachi 188, M/s. Fazal Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd. Karachi v. Rehmat Khan and another PLD 1972 Karachi 397 and M/s. Crown Construction Services and another v. Mst. Nasreen Begum and another 1988 CLC 64 as well as the provisions contained in sections 13, 14 and 17 of the Sindh. Family Courts Act XXXV of 1964 (as amended).
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the perusal of record shows that the petitioner was not heard as it the impugned order itself the learned revisional Court has observed that the petitioner was not served, therefore, it is borne out from the record that she was condemned unheard. There is also considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision itself was not maintainable. His submission find support from the case-law (supra). Be that as it may, the fact is that the respondent No,1 is liable to pay Rs,3,900 as was ordered by the learned Family Court per month and according to his learned counsel he is depositing this amount in the office of the Nazarat of the learned Trial Court. In these circumstances the order passed by the learned revisional Court is set aside and it is ordered that as directed by the learned Family Court the respondent No,1 shall continue paying the decretal amount and in case of default it would be open for the petitioner to approach the learned Family Court for orders. With these directions/observations the petition stands disposed of as partly allowed with no orders as to cost.