TAUQEER AHMAD QURESHI versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
With the Family Court increasing the annual allowance of Section 5 and 13 juveniles to 20%, the order of the court implementing the decree may not go back to that order, but at the same time the aforesaid court may review it. The question of whether the decree or part of it was enforceable or unenforceable, and if for some reason this decree came into force, the executing court was authorized to make that declaration and if the decree One part was unforgivable and that part was separated from the other. After this, the Implementing Court was empowered to refuse to execute the invalid part of the decree and proceed with the execution of the rest of the decree. In the present case, there was nothing in the record to show that the father of these minors had the means of paying the surplus, as the trial court minors always approached the Family Court for the possibility of rehabilitation, in future prospects. Because of these changes, the decisions of the High Court and the lower courts were not sustainable, to the extent of a 20% increase in the allowance for juvenile care that was not sustainable which would only be eligible for a 5% annual increase in the allowance. Will meet the pursuit of justice
