LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that a retired army officer’s pension is not protected from attachment, when it comes to enforcing a final maintenance decree issued by a family court in favour of minor children.
A division bench, comprising Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan and Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains, issued the ruling on a petition filed by Muhammad Latif, a retired army official, against an additional district and sessions judge’s order.
The wife of the petitioner had sued him for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dowry articles, while his minor children sought maintenance.
The law suits were decided in 2014, with the petitioner directed to pay Rs3,000 per month to each child, with a 10pc annual increase, until their marriage or change of custody.
Appeals by both sides against the decree were dismissed in 2015, making it final.
During the execution proceedings, a family court in Jaranwala issued non-bailable arrest warrants against the petitioner and moved to attach funds in his pension account.
The petitioner’s application for cancellation of the warrants and releasing his pension was dismissed in 2019. Consequently, he approached the high court.
A single bench hearing the case initially found that two earlier LHC rulings had taken conflicting positions on a closely related question – whether pension of a retired army officer can be attached in execution of a family court maintenance decree.
The division bench’s judgement authored by Justice Awan held that Section 11 of the Pensions Act, which bars attachment of pension “at the instance of a creditor,” does not apply to a family court maintenance decree in favour of minor children, because such children are not “creditors” in the ordinary legal sense contemplated by the provision.
The bench explained that a child’s right to maintenance arises from the father-child relationship and the father’s pre-existing legal obligation to maintain his children — not from any loan, advance, or commercial transaction — and that a family court decree merely quantifies and enforces that obligation, rather than creating an ordinary debtor-creditor relationship.
On Section 171 of the Pakistan Army Act, the bench noted the provision specifically protects the “pay and allowances” of serving personnel from attachment by a “civil or revenue court,” but does not extend to pension.
It said the family court — a specialised court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1964, separate from the civil courts listed under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 — falls outside the Army Act provision’s scope in any event.
The bench also cited the Quranic injunction appearing in Surah Al Baqarah on a father’s duty to provide for his children according to his means, Pakistan’s constitutional commitment to the Islamic principles under articles 2 and 2-A, and classical Muslim personal law on a father’s maintenance obligation as explained by D.F. Mulla.
The bench observed that the petitioner had failed to show any jurisdictional defect or legal violation warranting interference with the family court’s order.
It added that merely receiving a pension does not, by itself, shield a judgement-debtor from execution of a final maintenance decree.
The bench dismissed the petition, with a direction to the family court to proceed with the execution and conclude the process within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgement.
Published in Dawn, October 8th, 2026
