GHULAM HABIB vs Mst. ZUBAIDA KHATOON

' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 6-10-1991 passed by the Collector, Sargodha, respondent No,1 herein, and order dated 6-7-1989 passed by the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Mangowal Khurd, Tehsil Shahpur District Sargodha, respondent No,2 herein, whereby a decree for maintenance for a period of ten years and six months at the rate of Rs,300 per month amounting to Rs,37,800 plus Rs,4,000 for ornaments and garments was passed in favour of respondent No,3 herein and against the present petitioner.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was married to respondent No,3 about eleven years ago. She moved an application to the Chairman Arbitration Council, Mangowal, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha, that her husband was not keeping her with him for the last 10/1-2 years and he should be ordered to pay monthly maintenance allowance under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Ordinance'. The Chairman, Arbitration Council on 6-7-1989 ordered the petitioner herein to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,300 per month for a period of 10/1-2 years. He also ordered the petitioner to pay Rs,4,000 in connection with the ornaments, garments and other articles of dowry. The petitioner challenged this order in revision before the Controlling Authority, namely, the Collector. Sargodha., The revision petition was dismissed by order dated 4-8-1991 as time-barred. The petitioner moved an application for review which was also dismissed with the observation that the revision filed by him was barred by over nine months and there was no sufficient cause for condoning the period. The petitioner challenged these orders by means of this Constitutional petition.

3, Rana Abdul Hameed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Arbitration Council had no authority to order payment of arrears of past maintenance beyond a period of three years from the date of filing the application. In support of his contention reliance was placed on Abdul Latif v. Mst. Bakht Bhari and 2 others 1985 CLC 1184 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court observed that under section 9 of the Ordinance, maintenance for a period of more than three years preceding institution of claim could not be awarded by Arbitration Council.

4. Be that as it may, in Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and 3 others PLD 1972 SC 302, it was held that Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies in respect of claim for past maintenance. The limitation provided in this Article is for a period of six years when the right to sue accrues. In the instant case, the impugned decree for maintenance was passed by the Chairman Arbitration Council for a period of ten years and six months prior to the institution of the application, which was not warranted by law.

5. In view of the above, the impugned orders of the Collector as well as of the Chairman, Arbitration Council are declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case is remitted to the Collector, Sargodha, respondent No,1 herein, to decide the matter afresh on the basis of evidence already on record in the light of observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law.

The parties are directed to appear before him on 1-2-1992. To this extent the writ petition is accepted, but there shall be no order as to costs.