1994 PLP 1231 (MLD)

The respondent No.1, Mst Shamsa Zareen was the wife of the petitioner, Saleem Parvaiz Siddiqui. She moved an application before the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Halqa No.60, Faisalabad, respondent No. 3, for the grant of maintenance to her. The respondent issued notice to the petitioner for his appearance before him. The petitioner, however, failed to appear to contest the proceedings and this being so the respondent No-3 initiated ex parte proceedings against him and allowed Rs.80,000 as arrears of past maintenance for three years to the contesting respondent. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner challenged the order of respondent No.3 before the learned Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad, by filing revision petition. The learned Deputy Commissioner/Collector, after hearing the parties concluded that respondent No.1, in fact, was entitled to a sum of Rs.54,000 as past maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month vide order dated 22-5-1992. This order has been assailed by the petitioner by means of this Constitutional petition. The argument is that the petitioner was condemned unheard by the Chairman, Arbitration Council inasmuch as there was no evidence to grant the maintenance to the respondent without any legal cause. It is next contended that it was the duty of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to have determined the income of the petitioner on the basis of evidence before giving maintenance. According to him, this was not done by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 and as such the orders passed by them are not sustainable in law. He argued that past maintenance even otherwise, cannot be granted to a lady who was not willing to perform her conjugal duties. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent contends that the petitioner is an Engineer and that his monthly income is more than Rs.12,000 including his salary.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and as such they are liable to be repelled. The petitioner and his counsel were fully heard by the learned District Collector before passing the impugned order. Learned Collector, after assessing the evidence rightly and fairly fixed maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month. He has stated that the petitioner was duty bound to maintain his wife and that he did not intentionally appear before the Arbitration Council despite service. This is, undoubtedly, a question of fact arrived at by respondents Nos.2 and 3 on the basis of evidence. The contention that the petitioner's monthly income was more than Rs.12,000 was not so seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner even before this Court. The petitioner is, after all, an Engineer by profession and is employed as such. Learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality much less jurisdictional defects in the impugned order passed by the learned District Collector. This being so, there is no substance in the, petition which is hereby dismissed. H,B.T./S-434/L Petition dismissed.