1995 PLP 988 (MLD)

Mukhtar Ahmad v. Shahnaz Bibi 1986 CLC 2312 ref. (b) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.9(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Revision before Collector‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Petitioner was marked present on 22‑11‑1992 before Chairman Arbitration Council and he was bound down to appear on 6‑12‑1992 on which date judgment was to be announced‑‑ Petitioner did not appear on that day and judgment was duly passed on 14‑12‑1992‑‑‑Petitioner himself was required to find out what had happened on 6‑12‑1992 for which date he was bound down to appear before Chairman Arbitration Council‑‑‑Revision was to have been filed within 30 days but same was filed on 14‑3‑1993 and thus was rightly dismissed by Collector as time barred‑‑‑Interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction was not warranted in circumstances. Imran Ahmad Malik for Petitioner. Kh. Sadiq Hassan Kurk for Respondents. Muhammad Saleem, petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ward No.98, Gulshan‑e‑Ravi, Lahore, dated 14‑12‑1992 filed a revision against the same in the Court of DC/ Collector, Lahore dated 28‑8‑1993. This revision petition was dismissed and the order of the Chairman, Arbitration Council was upheld whereby Chairman had directed the petitioner to pay Rs.39,000 to Zeba Abdul Hameed, respondent No.l as her maintenance plus Rs.5,000 as expenses of the delivery of her child, total amount he has been directed to pay is Rs.44,000.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of Chairman, Arbitration Council, as being without jurisdiction. Since the petitioner had divorced respondent No.l on 24‑3‑1992 whereas the application for maintenance was filed on 16‑8‑1992. He has relied on judgment cited at `1986 CLC 2312' titled Mukhtar Ahmad v. Shahnaz Bibi, wherein it has been held that an ex‑wife cannot claim maintenance by applying the Chairman, Arbitration Council, she can only do so by means of civil suit. This proposition was examined by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgment cued at `1989 SCMR 119' titled Muhammad Najeeb v. Mst. Talat Shahnaz and others wherein it has been held that the term `wife' in section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance includes a wife who has been divorced, as such, she can file application for maintenance before the Chairman, Arbitration Council. This judgment has been followed by this Court in judgment cited at `1991 CLC 1813' titled Ghulam Jilani v. D.C./Collector, Sialkot thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the lack of jurisdiction of Arbitration Council has no force.

3. It was secondly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings of the Arbitration Council were held behind his back and the order regarding maintenance was passed on 6‑12‑1992 when neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present and furthermore this order was written and signed on 14‑12‑1992. That he did not learn of the order till 'he received notice of the execution of the same from the Tehsildar on 4‑3‑1993 and he immediately filed revision petition on 13‑3‑1993 before the D.C./Collector, Lahore. The said revision petition was dismissed as being time‑barred. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he filed the revision petition within 10 days of receiving the notice and this aspect was not considered by the revisional.

4. I have examined the record and I find that the petitioner was present on 22‑11‑1992 before the Chairman, Arbitration Council. He was bound down to appear on 6‑12‑1992, on which date, the judgment was to be passed. He did not appear and judgment was duly passed on 6‑12‑1992, while the petitioner was wilfully absent. The order was written and signed on 14‑12‑1992. It was for the petitioner to find out what had happened on 6‑12‑1992. Since the date had already been fixed for decision of the matter, if he slept over his own rights at that stage the revisional Court very rightly found no reason for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition.

5. In these circumstances, the revision petition having been barred by time, this is not an appropriate case for interference in exercise of extra ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this petition is dismissed. A.A./M-1932/L Petition dismissed.