MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus CHAIRMAN, ARBITRATION COUNCIL, UNION COUNCIL JALAL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT GUJRANWALA

The Petitioner, Manzoor Hussain, has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned order dated 27‑2‑1987 passed by respondent. No.1 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were married in the year 1976. However, the petitioner divorced his wife by sending a written divorce to her on 8‑1‑1987. A copy of the divorce alongwith a notice was also sent by the petitioner to the respondent No.l, Chairman Arbitration Council, Union Council, Jalal, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. On the receipt of the notice respondent No.l summoned both the parties before him. Notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance on 18‑1‑1987, 31‑1‑1987 and 16‑2‑1987 but none from the parties appeared before him. The learned Chairman, respondent No.l, proceeded to pronounce his decision vide his order dated 27‑2‑1987. It was observed by the respondent that both the parties did not appear before him for conciliation purpose. He proceeded to observe that this showed that the parties were not interested in the matter. He observed in the decision that the divorce has been written on plain‑paper and further the same is not witnessed by the competent witnesses. He also stated that the petitioner did not turn up in order to verify the fact of pronouncement of Talaq by him upon respondent No.2. Resultantly, the proceedings filed before him were consigned to record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that under' Muslim Law, the petitioner has divorced his wife and intimation thereof has been conveyed by him to respondent No.l. He submitted that it was his duty to have held that the divorce pronounced by the petitioner upon his wife has become effective. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner himself did not appear before the Chairman Arbitration Council to substantiate the fact whether in fact he has pronounced Talaq upon respondent No.2 or not. Thus, the respondent No.l was justified in law in consigning the proceedings before him to record. I do not find any justification to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of force is dismissed.

H . B . T . /M‑499/ L Petition dismissed.