1991 PLP 1356 (CLC)
MU14AMMAD JAVED AKHTAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1356 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MU14AMMAD JAVED AKHTAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muslim Family laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1356 (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 1991 PLP 1356 (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: 1991 PLP 1356 (CLC) (MU14AMMAD JAVED AKHTAR ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sirat Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Miss Hina Jillani for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 29th April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ S.9 ‑‑‑ West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R.16 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Limitation for filing revision against order of maintenance passed by Arbitration Council being thirty days, revision filed beyond period of one month would be barred by time ‑‑‑ Petitioner had been appearing be fore Arbitration Council, on certain dates but subsequently absented himself ‑‑‑ No justification was pointed out for not challenging order of Arbitration Council within time ‑‑‑ Petitioner having failed to avail of statutory remedy within time and his revision having been dismissed as barred by time, he could not challenge order of Arbitration Council on merits before High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction ‑‑‑ Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Mumtaz Khan v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Mst. Khurshid Regum P L D 1966 SC 276 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Sirat Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Miss Hina Jillani for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 29th April, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of an application under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 riled by Mst. Bushra Rafique respondent No.3 against Muhammad Javed petitioner claiming maintenance from him at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month, which was accepted by respondent No.2 on 8‑4‑1988. The petitioner riled a revision against this order of the Arbitration Council which was however, dismissed by the Collector, Lahore as being barred by time on 30‑10‑1989.
2. Syed Seerat Hussain Naqvi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month was excessive and exorbitant as there was no evidence before the Arbitration Council to show that the petitioner had the means to pay maintenance at the rate fixed.
3. This contention of the learned counsel however, cannot be examined in the present proceedings. It appears from the order passed by the Collector that the revision petition was dismissed as being barred by time. The Arbitration Council had passed the order on 8th of April, 1988 but the revision petition was filed before the Collector on 1‑9‑1988 i.e. after about five months of the order of the Arbitration Council. According to Rule 16 of the Muslim Family Courts I Rules, 1961 the limitation of filing such a petition is thirty days. There is no explanation forthcoming on the record as to way the filing of the revision was delayed by the petitioner. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been appearing before the Arbitration Council on certain dates but subsequently absented himself. That being so there was no justification whatsoever for not challenging the impugned order of the Arbitration Council within time.
4. As the petitioner has failed to avail of the statutory remedy within time and his revision petition had been dismissed as barred by time, it is not open to him to challenge the order of the Arbitration Council on merits before this Court. (See Mumtaz Khan v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Mst. Khurshid Begum (P L D 1966 Supreme Court 276 (286). That being so this petition is without any force and dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A./M‑2953 Petition dismissed.