1994 PLP 1912 (MLD)
AMJAD ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. HAFEEZAN BEGUM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1912 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | AMJAD ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. HAFEEZAN BEGUM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1912 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1912 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1912 (MLD) (AMJAD ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. HAFEEZAN BEGUM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Waheed-ud-Din Virk for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ramzan Khokhar for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9
Arbitration Council directed husband to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month without positive proof on record with regard to income of husband
Order of Arbitration Council not based on evidence, was not sustainable
High Court set aside order of Arbitration Council and remanded case to decide afresh.
Judgment & Decree
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the order of the Arbitration Council dated 30th June 1990, whereby, while accepting an application under section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, filed by respondent No.1, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month, with effect from April, 1989. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Collector having been dismissed on 26th August, 1990, he has now filed this Constitutional petition.
2. Mr.Waheed-ud-Din Virk, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no evidence before the Arbitration Council on the basis of which the income of the petitioner could be assessed and the Arbitration Council has acted arbitrarily in directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent is unable to point out any evidence led by the respondent regarding income of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a certificate issued by his alleged employer showing that the salary of the petitioner is Rs.1,020 per month.
3. Be that as it may, it is to be seen that in order dated 30th June, 1990,the Arbitration Council itself had observed that there was no positive proof on the record as regard the income of the petitioner. Despite this observation, the petitioner was held liable to pay Rs.1,500 per month as maintenance. This approximation is not based on any evidence and is not sustainable. It thus appears that the application filed by respondent No.1 has not been decided in accordance with law.
4. As a result of what has been said above, the orders impugned in this petition are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the application for maintenance filed by respondent No.1 shall be deemed to be pending before the Arbitration Council concerned and shall be decided afresh. The parties shall appear before the Chairman, Arbitration Council on 10th April, 1991. He shall complete proceedings within a period of two months. Compliance of this order shall be reported by him to the Registrar of this Court. H.B.T./A-628/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.