1989 PLP 5003 (MLD)

Ch. Nazir Muhammad for Petitioner. This writ petition assails the orders dated 26‑3‑1988 and 14‑3‑1989 respectively passed by the Chairman Arbitration Council No.65, Gehlan Hithar, Teh. Chunian, Distt. Kasur and the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kasur, the revisional authority.

2. Mst. Abida Perveen respondent No.1, filed an application before the Chairman Arbitration Council Gehlan Hithar, for the recovery of maintenance from her husband, the petitioner under section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. On 26‑3‑1988, the Chairman Arbitration Council passed an order for recovery of Rs.30,250, on account of maintenance for two years against the petitioner.

3. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Chairman Arbitration Council, the petitioner went in revision before the learned District Collector, Kasur but his revision failed and was dismissed on 14‑3‑1989 and thus the present writ petition.

4. It has been mainly urged on behalf of the petitioner that he has been condemned unheard. No notice regarding arbitration proceedings was served on him. The impugned order regarding maintenance was passed by the Chairman Arbitration Council at his back without affording any opportunity to him. It has next been urged that maintenance has been awarded at the rate of more than Rs.2,000 per month and the petitioner who is currently studying in Tibbia College, cannot afford to pay maintenance, at this rate. The Arbitration Council has faded to take into consideration as to what was the means of income of the petitioner.

5. Precisely, the same pleas were raised by the petitioner before the learned Revisional Authority. Regarding his contention that he has been condemned unheard, it has been observed by the learned Collector that Nizam Din, father of the petitioner, appeared before the Chairman and promised to produce his son i.e. the petitioner on 2‑3‑1988 before the Arbitration Council but he failed to do so. This observation of the Collector is based on the record of the Arbitration Council in this case which was produced before him at the time of hearing of the revision filed by the petitioner. It has also been observed that the father of the petitioner was bound down by the Chairman to produce his son i.e. the petitioner by obtaining thumb‑impression on the record. About the petitioners plea that he has been burdened with maintenance beyond his means, it has been noticed by the learned Collector that the petitioner can easily pay the maintenance awarded against him.

6. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction has not to enter into the realm of facts. Its interference with the impugned orders in constitutional jurisdiction is only warranted if the impugned orders are without lawful authority. No such infirmity is forthcoming qua the impugned orders and, therefore, there is no substance in the present writ petition which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑1582/L Petition dismissed.