NASREEN ASHRAF Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL

The petitioner, fast. Nasreen Ashraf, has moved this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against the respondents praying therein that the order dated 29‑7‑1986, passed by the Collector, Lahore, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The Chairman. Arbitration Council, Halqa No.65, Sands, Islampura, Lahore, vide his order dated 11‑12‑1985 allowed the application of the petitioner thereby allowing her a maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.9000 per month from 9‑9‑1984 to 2‑6‑1985. Respondent No.l feeling aggrieved of this order, filed a revision petition under section 9(2) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, before the Collector, Lahore, who vide his order dated 29‑7‑1986, reduced the amount of maintenance allowance from Rs.9000 to Rs. 3000 per month for the period from 9‑9‑1984 till Iddat period. That means that the period for which the maintenance allowance was given, was also reduced to Iddat period.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no legal justification whatsoever with the Collector to interfere in the order passed by the Arbitration Council, inasmuch as the decision of the Council was based on evidence as well as on law on the subject. The maintenance allowance was fixed with the consent of the representatives of both the parties, and as such, the revision petition filed by respondent No.l was not competent. It is next contended that the period was rightly and legally calculated by the Arbitration Council, i.e. from 9‑9‑1984 to 28‑6‑1985. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the divorce pronounced by the respondent became effective on 28‑6‑1985. Learned counsel for the respondent No.l has refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that no exception can be taken to the well reasoned order passed by the Collector, Lahore. He has further stated that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance allowance only for Iddat period and not beyond that.

4. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the learned Collector has clearly fallen in error in reducing the period for which the maintenance allowance was allowed to the petitioner. There is considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the divorce pronounced by the respondent upon the petitioner became effective on 28‑6‑1985. This being so, the maintenance allowance was correctly awarded by the Arbitration Council for a period of nine months. i.e. from 9‑9‑1984 to 28‑6‑1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Inamul Islam v. Mst. Hussain Bano etc., P L D 1976 Lah. 1466.

5. After scrutinizing the entire record, I have come to the conclusion that in the case in hand the divorce pronounced by the respondent became effective on 28‑6‑1985 and as such, the learned Collector has wrongly calculated the period for granting maintenance allowance to the petitioner. However, the finding of the learned Collector regarding the reduction of the amount from Rs.9000 to Rs.3000 is well based in evidence. Accordingly, I partly allow this petition and modify the revisional order of the Collector and hold that the petitioner is entitled to the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3000 per month from 9‑9‑1984 to 28‑6‑1985. There shall be no order as to costs.

H . B . T / N‑91/ L Petition partly allowed.