1992 PLP 2086 (CLC)
Syed MUHAMMAD ABID ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR, LAHORE and others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 2086 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD ABID ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR, LAHORE and others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 2086 (CLC)?
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 1992 PLP 2086 (CLC)?
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: 1992 PLP 2086 (CLC) (Syed MUHAMMAD ABID ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR, LAHORE and others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khawaja for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 1992. ,
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ S.9 ‑‑‑ Maintenance, grant of ‑‑‑ Arbitration Council, could not grant maintenance to wife for period during which parties were living together, prior to dissolution of marriage ‑‑‑ Nothing being on record to suggest that rate on which maintenance had been granted, was excessive or exorbitant, Arbitration Council, had rightly granted rate of maintenance taking into consideration fact that husband who was working abroad was drawing handsome salary.
Judgment & Decree
This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arising out of maintenance matter under Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 riled by Mst. Rukhsana Shakil respondent No.3 who was married to Syed Muhammad Abid petitioner on 12th of February, 1987. The marriage unfortunately ended in dissolution 4hrough Talaq pronounced by the petitioner on 15th of June, 1987 about which, the Chairman of Arbitration Council was duly informed as required by section 7 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. During the pendency of those proceedings, an application under section 9 (2) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 was riled by respondent No.3, in which she demanded maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month w.e.f. 12th February, 1987. This application was allowed by the Arbitration Council and the petitioner was directed to ~ay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000 w.e.f. 12th February, 1987 till 15th of September, 1987 when the divorce became effective.
2. The revision filed by the petitioner against this order has been dismissed by the Collector, Lahore on 10th January, 1989.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3. She is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions; firstly, that the Arbitration Council has awarded maintenance for the period during which parties were living together, secondly, that the rate on which the maintenance has been granted is exorbitant.
5. The first contention of the learned counsel is supported by the contents of the application made by respondent No.3 for grant of maintenance itself, in which she admitted that the parties had lived together in Saudi Arabia from Ist April, 1987, till June, 1987. There was as such no justification for the Arbitration Council to grant the maintenance for this period.
6. So far as the contention of the learned counsel regarding rate of maintenance, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the award of Rs.3,000 per month as maintenance is excessive or exorbitant. The Arbitration Council has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was working in Saudi Arabia and drawing a handsome salary every month. In view of what has been stated above the order of the Arbitration Council to the extent it directs the petitioner to pay maintenance for the period from Ist of April 1987 to 10th of June, 1987 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the re5ult,that the petitioner shall be liable to pay maintenance for the remaining period at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month. No orders as to costs H.B.T./B‑517/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.