1991 PLP 831 (CLC)

Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sabbir for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1991. The petitioner and respondent No.1 were married in accordance with the Muslim rites. Thereafter their relations become strained. The petitioner filed an application before respondent No.2 for grant of maintenance. The respondent No.1 resisted the same. However, her application was allowed vide order dated 23-3-1986. The respondent No.1 challenged this order before respondent No.3, who accepted the revision and remanded the matter for fresh decision. The respondent No.2 As time fixed the rate of maintenance at Rs.400 per month vide order dated 25-6-1986. The respondent No.1 once again challenged this girder through revision petition, which was partially accepted by respondent N9.3 vide order dated 25-7-1989. The result was that the quantum was decreased from Rs.400 p.m to Rs.300 per month and period was also reduced. The petitioner has now challenged the order of respondent No.3. The petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents but none of them has appeared, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petitioner argued that respondent No.3 proceeded in an illegal manner while reducing the quantum and period for which maintenance was allowed by respondent No.2. It is added that the revision before respondent No.3 was hopelessly time-barred, but the said respondent did not decide the point of limitation, therefore, his order is illegal. In this behalf reliance is placed on the case of Ahsan Ali and others v. District Judge and others (P L D 1909 S.C. 167). 3. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the precedent case. In view of the order proposed, I am consciously not recording any findings in respect of the merits, lest it should prejudice either of the parties. Suffice it is to observe here that respondent No.3 has failed to give any reasons for reducing the period and quantum of maintenance. The said respondent was under legal obligation also to decide whether the Revision Petition before him was within limitation or not. This is no adjudication of the rights of the people and cannot be appreciated.

4. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is allowed and order of respondent No.3 dated 25-7-1989 is set aside. The result is that revision filed by respondent No.1 against order dated 25-6-1986 of respondent No.2 will be deemed pending before respondent No.3, who shall decide the same in accordance with law and facts on record. The petition to be decided expeditiously and in any case by 30th April, 1991. There is no order as to costs. H.B.T./H-208/L. Petition allowed