D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) BY an order dated 26. 9. 1996 passed in Suit No. 573 of 1995 by the Judge, Family Court, azamgarh had allowed the application for maintenance filed by one Anjum and others. This order has been challenged by Shamim Ahmad and two others alleging that they are bona fide purchaser of the house belonging to the husband Shabbir Ahmad without notice. Therefore, part of the order dated 26. 9. 1996, by which the said property purchased by the petitioners has been charged for maintenance allowance, is wholly void and does not bind the petitioner. He has accordingly filed an objection which Is Annexure-4 to the writ petition before the Family Court after the decree was passed but the same has not yet been decided. On the other hand, the execution court has been directed to be proceeded with. In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : " (i) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 26. 9. 1996 in so far as the petitioners house situated in Mehra-Chandpatti, Pargana and tehsil Sagrl. district Azamgarh has been sought to be made the charge of the maintenance allowance" and to quash the Execution Case No. 2 of 1997, pending in the Court of respondent no. 1 in so far as it has attached the aforesaid house of the petitioners. (ii) a suitable, writ order, or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent No. 1 from proceeding any further with the Execution Case No. 2 of 1997. pending before it. " ( 2 ) SHRI A. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Mohammedan law there is no provision for attachment of the house for maintenance. He further submits that the property having been purchased by the petitioner, the order passed in the said proceeding is not binding on him. He also contends that since the maintenance has been granted till the attainment of majority, under the Mohammedan Law, it is available only for a period of two years and not beyond. According to him, even if such attachment is necessary, that can be passed only after the decree is passed and not before. On these grounds, he contends that the order dated 26. 8. According to him, even if such attachment is necessary, that can be passed only after the decree is passed and not before. On these grounds, he contends that the order dated 26. 8. 1996 should be set aside and the respondents shall be restrained from proceeding further with the execution. Alternatively he contends that his application/objection filed in the execution case be decided. ( 3 ) 1 have heard Sri A. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner at length. ( 4 ) IN the prayer made in this writ petition, nowhere it has been pointed out that the application/objection filed in the execution case be decided. In the absence of any such prayer, it is not open to make such prayer before this Court without incorporating any such pleading and prayer in the writ petition. As we have seen from the prayers, the writ petition contains the prayer for quashing the order dated 26. 9. 1996 so far as it creates charge of maintenance allowance over the property purchased by the petitioner and for vacating the order of attachment and restraining the respondent No. 1 from proceeding with the execution case. ( 5 ) THE proceeding is a proceeding for maintenance between the husband, wife and children. Even if the petitioner had purchased the property in question, he cannot intervene In such a proceeding. If he has a right, he can settle it only through appropriate proceeding when the property is put for sale or sale proclamation is published. So far as the order of maintenance and the order of attachment is concerned, he cannot claim any right in respect of order dated 26. 9. 1996. It is not open to him to challenge the order to which he was neither a party nor he can never be a party to such a proceeding. He cannot have any interest in the lis between the husband, wife and children in a suit for maintenance. Therefore, he cannot maintain the objection in the execution of the order of maintenance and as such any objection put forth by him is not maintainable. ( 6 ) IF at all he has any such right, he can claim his right only when the property Is put to sale through a sale proclamation and not before. Therefore, he cannot maintain the objection in the execution of the order of maintenance and as such any objection put forth by him is not maintainable. ( 6 ) IF at all he has any such right, he can claim his right only when the property Is put to sale through a sale proclamation and not before. I however do not express any opinion with regard to the right of the petitioner with regard to sale proclamation or sale at this stage of the proceeding. Such question shall remain open to be decided at appropriate stage, if occasion arise, in accordance with law. ( 7 ) SO far as the question of attachment, as has been contended by Shri Tripathi. learned counsel for the petitioner that it can be done only after the decree is passed, appears to be wholly misconceived, inasmuch as decree has already been passed and the order of attachment is passed simultaneously along with the passing of the decree which is also permissible. ( 8 ) SO far as the question that under the Mohammedan Law. minor children is entitled for maintenance only for a period of two years and not thereafter is concerned, the said question cannot be raised by the petitioner who has no interest in the lis. If at all such question is to be raised, the same could have been raised by the Husband. The husband having agreed and consented to maintain the children till majority as is reflected in the orders, he cannot go back on his consent. The third party does not have any right to nullify such consent and intervene in the matter between husband, wife and children. The provisions of the family court is applicable to the family as defined in the said Act. However, stretching the scope and ambit of the said provisions, the petitioner cannot be included in the family concerned in the proceeding for maintenance. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order and in my view the writ petition is wholly misconceived and is not maintainable by the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. However, there will be no order as to cost. .