Mst. SHABNAM RASHID vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR And OTHER
This petition challenges an order passed by the District Collector, Kasur, which set aside an Arbitration Council’s decision granting maintenance to the petitioner. The petitioner had sought maintenance from her former husband, which the Arbitration Council initially awarded. However, the Collector reversed this, noting that the parties had previously resolved all disputes, including maintenance, during prior Talaaq proceedings before a different Arbitration Council, where they agreed not to initiate further litigation. The core legal question was whether a claim for maintenance remains maintainable under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, after the marital relationship has dissolved. The Court held that the maintenance application was not maintainable because the marital relationship between the parties had already ceased to exist on 11-3-1999. The Court affirmed that Section 9(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, is only applicable when the relationship of husband and wife subsists. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the principle that once a marriage is dissolved and disputes are settled, the Arbitration Council lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate maintenance claims under the Ordinance.
- Can a wife claim maintenance under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, after the marital relationship has been dissolved?
- Does the Arbitration Council have jurisdiction to award maintenance under Section 9(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, if the marriage no longer subsists?
- Is a settlement reached during Talaaq proceedings regarding future litigation binding on the parties?
- Section 9(1), Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved against the order of Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Kasur, dated 12-10- 1999, whereby he set aside the order of the Arbitration Council granting maintenance to her @ Rs.3,500 per month from 1-8-1997 to 11-3-1999.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Shabnam Rasheed/petitioner submitted an application for grant of maintenance before Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ward No.5, Town Committee, Chunian, Kasur/ respondent No.2 @ Rs.5,000 per month against the respondent with effect from November, 1996 to 11-3-1999 amounting to Rs.1,35,000. Respondent No.3 contested the application. After recording evidence respondent No.2 granted maintenance to the petitioner Q Rs.3,500 per month from 1-8-199" to 11-3-1999 amounting to Rs.67,683 vide order, dated 21-6-1999 The petitioner as well as respondent No.3 being dissatisfied with the said order filed separate revisions before the Collector, Kasur who accepted the Revision No.13 filed by respondent No.3 and set aside the order of Arbitration Council, whereas, Revision No.18 of .The petitioner was dismissed through consolidated impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Collector misconstrued the order, dated 17- 3-1999 and the proceedings of Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ward No.158, Samanabad, Lahore, initiated on notice of Talaaq sent by respondent No.3; that the petitioner has not relinquished her right of maintenance; that said proceedings only related to recovery of dowry, ornaments and dower, that the petitioner has not made any statement to abandon her claim of maintenance; that the impugned order is not in conformity with the evidence on record.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned order by submitting that all type of litigation between the parties had come to an end through the proceedings before the Arbitration Council, Samanabad, Lahore, consequently, Chairman, Arbitration Council on 17-3-1999 declared the Talaaq effective between the spouses. He has referred the relevant portion of the said order and proceedings before the Chairman.
4. Heard. Record perused. It is clearly mentioned in the order of the Arbitration Council, Ward No'.
158, Samanabad that none of tire parties will institute any suit against each other, They have settled their all kinds of disputes and it has been agreed between them that whosoever initiates litigation he will himself be responsible for such litigation and such litigation will be deemed to be false, forged and incorrect. All disputes regarding recovery of dowry, clothes, ornaments and dower have been resolved between them in the presence of Khalid Ahmad Khan, Ex-Councillor. It is further mentioned in the said order that the parties shall not litigate any more. Talaaq has become effective after the expiry of prescribed period. This order was not further challenged by any of the parties, thus, attained finality. The perusal of order indicates that the parties got rid of each other and all disputes also resolved during Talaaq proceedings. The petitioner subsequently, on 3-4-1999 instituted an application for grant of maintenance which was not maintainable before respondent No.2. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 as wife and husband has already come to an end on 11-3-1999, therefore, it was not maintainable. Section 9(1) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 reads as under: "9. Maintenance.--- (1) If any husband fails to maintain his wife adequately or where there are more wives than one, fails to maintain them equitably, the wife or all or any of the wives may in addition to seeking any other legal remedy available apply to the Chairman who shall constitute an Arbitration Council to determine the matter, and the Arbitration Council may issue a certificate specifying the amount which shall be paid as maintenance by the husband."
Aforesaid provision is attracted when relationship of husband and wife subsists between the parties. As separation (divorce) has already taken place between them application for grant of maintenance was not competent before Chairman, Arbitration Council. Supreme Court in the case Mst. Naziran v. Collector, Sialkot 1990 SCM R 803 expressed the same view. Respondent No. l for valid reasons accepted revision of respondent No.3 against the petitioner. The impugned order is based on proper assumption of law and facts, warranting no interference.
5. For the reasons stated above, this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Haji TARIQ ALI vs Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and 2 others 2006 PLJ Lahore 1254
- Haji TARIQ ALI vs Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and 2 otherss 2006 YLR 1645
- UMAR FAROOQ vs GHAZALA FARHAT and 2 others 2003 MLD 1265