1988 PLP 1541 (MLD)

In this Constitutional petition, order dated 28‑6‑1988 passed by Collector Lahore, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner against order dated 8‑4‑1984, passed by Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ward No. 53, Rehmanpura, Lahore directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 1,500 P.M. has been challenged.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that though in the application before Chairman, Arbitration Council the respondent No. 1 claimed an amount of Rs. 2,000 P.M. as her maintenance but when she appeared as P.W.1 in cross examination she admitted that out of the said amount of Rs. 2,000 P.M. she had included claim of the maintenance of her three children at the rate of Rs. 400 P.M. each and so far as she was concerned her own claim in the said total amount was only of Rs. 800 P.M., therefore, the Chairman, Arbitration Council could not grant maintenance allowance to respondent No. 1 beyond Rs. 800 P.M.

3. I have examined the statement of respondent No. 1 as P.W.

1. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. She categorically stated that total claimed amount of Rs. 2,000 ",as, inclusive of the; maintenance of her three children at the rate of Rs. 400 P.M. for each child and her own monthly A allowance out of the said amount was Rs. 800 P.M. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, argued that in the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Collector no such ground was urged. I am afraid, the contention has no force because in the grounds of revision it has been specifically averred that the order passed by Chairman Arbitration Council awarding maintenance at the l rate of Rs. 15,00 P.M. was illegal, against law and facts of the case and that the Chairman, Arbitration Council did not properly appraise the evidence of the. parties on the file. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, then argued that other witnesses produced by respondent No. 1 stated that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,000 P.M., therefore, Chairman, Arbitration Council could proceed to pass order on the basis of the, said evidence of the other witnesses. The argument has not impressed me. If the despondent No. 1 herself was restricting her claim of maintenance to Rs. 800 F.M. she could not be granted more than the said amount merely because the other witnesses stated that she should be granted more. According to law, the evidence' of any witness other than the party to the proceedings is always of corroborative nature and cannot be considered as independent evidence on the basis of which a party could be granted relief more than what was claimed by the said party itself.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent then argued that in the application the respondent No. 1 clearly claimed Rs. 2,000 P.M. and the said amount could be granted to her on the basis of the application itself. The argument has no substance. The law is firmly settled that pleadings are not the evidence. The case `C has to be decided on the basis of evidence produced before the authority who has to decide the matter.

5. The Chairman, Arbitration Council had no jurisdiction to grant maintenance allowance to respondent No. 1 beyond Rs. 800 P.M. claimed by herself. The Collector in deciding the revision petition of the petitioner by order dated 28‑6‑1988 also failed to examine the propriety and legality of the order of Chairman, Arbitration Council, therefore, it also failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction which is primarily meant for correction of such errors. The order of Chairman, Arbitration Council granting maintenance allowance to respondent No. 1 beyond Rs. 800 P.M. is, therefore, not sustainable in law. This writ petition D partly succeeds. It is hereby declared that the order of Chairman, Arbitration Council dated 8‑4‑1987, granting maintenance allowance to respondent No. 1 beyond Rs. 800 P.M. is without lawful authority and of no legal effect and to that extent the said order is quashed. It is maintained to the extent of Rs. 800 P.M. The respondent No. 1, is however, at liberty to seek remedy before proper Court for recovery of maintenance allowance of her three children which was not within the jurisdiction of the Chairman, Arbitration Council to decide. The parties are left to bear their own costs. M.Y.H./M‑934/L Petition partly allowed.