Mst. SHAHNAZ AKHTAR vs JAVAID IQBAL and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an order by a Collector regarding maintenance payments. The petitioner, a wife, had been granted maintenance by the Chairman of the Arbitration Council, which included a retroactive award for five years preceding the filing of her application. Upon revision, the Collector modified this order, disallowing maintenance for the period prior to the application's institution, citing a finding of fact that the respondent had already provided maintenance during that time. The petitioner challenged this modification in the High Court, which declined to interfere with the Collector's factual determination. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to disturb the Collector's finding of fact regarding the prior provision of maintenance. The Supreme Court held that the Collector's finding was a conclusive finding of fact, and the High Court acted correctly in not interfering with it. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the principle that appellate or revisional courts generally do not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a Collector in a revision petition?
- Is a finding that maintenance was already provided for a specific period considered a finding of fact?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to grant maintenance for a period preceding the institution of the application if maintenance was already provided?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- The petitioner was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs,800 per month by the Chairman of the Arbitration Council not only for the period during which her application remained pending but from the date which preceded the institution of the application by 5 years.
On a revision taken by the respondent, the Collector modified the order of the Chairman and disallowed the maintenance for the period prior to the making of the application. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Collector in writ jurisdiction before the High Court but without success. She now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There is a finding by the Collector that for the period prior to the making of the application the respondent has been providing maintenance to the petitioner. This was a finding of fact and the High Court was justified in not interfering with it. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.