ABDUL LATEEF Versus SURAT KHATOON

The petitioner Abdul Latif has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned orders, dated 3‑2‑1987 and 22‑6‑1987 passed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. The case in brief is that respondent No.l Mst. Surat Khatun moved a petition under section 9 (1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 for the issuance of a certificate for payment of maintenance to her as well as to her minor daughter Mst. Khurshid Bibi, respondent No.2, against the petitioner on 9‑1‑1987, at the rate of Rs.6,000 per month. The Chairman Union Council, respondent No.3, conducted the necessary investigation in the case vide his order, dated 3‑2‑1987, allowed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.600 per month and as such, a sum of Rs.14,400 in all was allowed to the respondent. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of this order, went in revision before the learned Deputy Commissioner/ Collector who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the revision vide his order, dated 22‑6‑1987. It was held by the learned Revisional Court that the Arbitration Council was constituted in accordance with law and that the statements of the parties were recorded and the Revisional Court further observed that the Arbitration Council after considering the evidence available on record, passed the impugned order which is just and proper.

3. Learned counsel contended that the Arbitration Council wasp not competent to pass an order of maintenance in favour of the' respondent on the ground that the application has been moved by the wife as well as the minor daughter jointly. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application for maintenance was moved by the wife alone and as such, the petition in hand was competent. My attention has been drawn to the application dated 9‑1‑1987, (Annexure 'A') moved by Mst. Surat Khatun. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully I am of the view that the application was moved by Mst. Surat Khatun and as such, the same was competent in law. Additionally, this point of jurisdiction was never argued before the Arbitration Council as well as before the Revisional Court. The maintenance allowance has been allowed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 after hearing the parties and the impugned orders are just and proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmities in the impugned orders. I find no substance in the petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./A‑312/L Petition dismissed