1992 PLP 246 (CLC)

(ii) Rs.12,000 (Mehar Moajal) Gold ornaments. (iii) Rs.25,000 (Mehar Mowabal) to be paid in case of IInd marriage. (iv) Rs.4,000 further to be paid by Manzoor Hussain to Mst. Anwar Begum under section 9‑B of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed revision petition under subsection (2) of section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), before the District Collector, Sahiwal, who dismissed the same by order dated 31‑3‑1990. In consequence thereof, the petitioner was apprehended by Collector in execution proceedings of impugned order and was later on released. In disputing the validity of the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Arbitration Council had no authority to decide the claim regarding dower and dowry. Under subsection (1) of section 9 of the Ordinance, the Arbitration Council is empowered to issue a certificate specifying the amount which shall be paid as maintenance by the husband to wife. It was stressed that the impugned orders were, therefore, coram‑non judice and were totally null and void.

4. In reply the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 supported the impugned decisions.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides at considerable length. After taking into consideration their contentions I am of the considered view that argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner has force. Under Section 9 of Ordinance, neither the Arbitration Council nor the Revisional Authority has jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes regarding dower and dowry. Section 9 of the Ordinance reads as follows: "

9. Maintenance.‑‑(1) If any husband fails to maintain his wife adequately or where there are more wives than one, fails to maintain them equitably, the wife, or all or any of the wives may in addition to seeking any other legal remedy available, apply to the Chairman who shall constitute an Arbitration Council to determine the matter, and Arbitration Council may issue a certificate specifying the amount which shall be paid as maintenance by the husband. (2) A husband or wife may in the prescribed manner, within the prescribed period, and on payment of the prescribed fee, prefer an application for revision of the certificate, in the case of West Pakistan to the Collector, and .His decision shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. (3) Any amount payable under sub‑section (1) or (2) if not paid in due time shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. From the bare reading of the above section it is quite clear that if any husband fails to maintain his wife adequately or where there are more wives than one fails to maintain them equitably, the wife, or all or any of the wives, had a remedy of applying to Chairman who shall constitute an Arbitration Council. This Arbitration Council is empowered to determine the matter and issue a certificate specifying the amount which a husband shall pay to the wife as maintenance. Evidently the Arbitration Council had no jurisdiction to decide, the question relating to dower and dowry.

6. This question came up for consideration in Ghulam Sabir v. Chairman, Union Committee Ward No.27, Samanabad, Lahore and 3 others (PLD 1981 Lah. 232). His Lordship Mr. Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal (as he then was) held that neither the arbitration council had the jurisdiction to decide the claim relating to dower nor the Collector had the authority to enforce such claim.

7. Applying this .principle to the facts and circumstances of this case I have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the order passed by the Arbitration Council dated 4‑7‑1988 and the order passed by Revisional Authority dated 31‑3‑1990 awarding the decree of Rs.12,000 as Mahar Moajal, Rs.25,000 as Mahar Mowajjal and Rs,4.000 are without jurisdiction and without any lawful authority and are declared as such. I, therefore, accept this petition quash the order of the Arbitration Council dated 4‑7‑1988 to the extent of awarding the decree of Rs.12,000 as Mahar Moajal, Rs.25,000 as Mahar Mowajjal and Rs.4,000 to be paid by Manzoor Hussain to Mst. Anwar Begum under section 9‑B of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the order of District Collector dated 31‑3‑1990. The impugned orders to the extent of maintenance of Rs.500 per month with effect from 4‑2‑1988 are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. AA./M‑130/L Order accordingly