1986 PLP 2312(2) (CLC)

Kh. Haris Ahmad for Petitioner. Abdus Sattar Chughtai for Respondent No.

3. Date of hearing: 29th April, 1985. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Halqa No. 55 Qaisar Park, Samanabad Lahore of 15-12-1983 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 9,000 to Mst. Nasim Firdous respondent No.3, his ex-wife, as maintenance for the period of Iddat. Mst. Nasim Firdous was un-represented, but on my request Mr. Abdul Sattar Chughtai, Advocate presented her case.

2. Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner gave Talaq to respondent No.3 through a notice dated 15-5-1983. The case was filed before the Chairman Arbitration Council on 3-8-1983 but nobody appeared on that day. The proceedings were, however, kept pending by the Chairman after he noticed that Mst. Nasim Firdous had reported to the Process Server that the parties were negotiating for a settlement. On 28-8-1983 Mushtaq Ahmad petitioner appeared and prayed for issuance of a certificate of divorce as a period of 90 days had expired on 14-8-1983. On 31-8-1983 the petitioner alone appeared but on 5-10-1983 both the parties appeared. The proceedings of this date indicate that the wife was keen to live with the husband but that the husband was not willing to take her back. At that stage Mst. Firdous demanded the payment of Rs. one lakh which according to her, the petitioner had agreed to pay to her in the event of divorce. The case was adjourned to 3-11-1983 and then to 23-11-1983. It is on 23-11-1983 that a reference is available to the settlement of dispute regarding the payment of maintenance for the period of Iddat. On 15-12-1983 the Chairman observed that the divorce had become effective on 14-8-1983 and it was in the course of this order that he directed payment of Rs.9,000 to Mst. Nasim Firdous as maintenance for the period of Iddat.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if it is conceded that past maintenance can be directed by the Arbitration Council, the Arbitration Council has no authority to award maintenance of any sort after the divorce became effective. In this case admittedly the divorce became effective on 14-8-1983. After this date the wife could bring her claim, if any, before a Civil Court. but not before the Arbitra,ion Council for claiming of maintenance. There is no denying the fact that for claiming maintenance an application is necessary but even if it is assumed that an oral request was made only on 23-11-1983 while the divorce had become effective on 14-8-1983. The Chairman of the Arbitration Council, therefore, had no power to entertain any application for maintenance or for that matter to order the payment of maintenance after 14-8-1983 when the divorce had become effective. The orders of the Chairman Arbitration Council to the extent they relate to the payment of Rs.9,000 as maintenance allowance for the period of Iddat are, therefore, without lawful authority. The writ petition is allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs. H . B . T . Petition allowed.