1. The questions involved in the above three petitions are common and inter linked, therefore, they are being disposed of by this single order. The fact leading to this order are that petitioner Sohail Karim and respondent Nisha Ayaz Khan married at Karachi on 21-6-1997. Rs,10,00,000 was the dower to be paid promptly. Also the husband undertook to pay Rs,1,00,000 as pocket money to the wife every month. Unfortunately the relations between the couple did not remain cordial for long and they separated form each other. The date and the year of separation is controversial as Sohail Majeed, the petitioner claims the event to have happened in August, 1997. He pleads that finding it difficult to continue with her, he pronounced divorce to Nisha Ayaz in presence of two witnesses on 6-8-1997 and sent copy of the divorce deed to Nisha Ayaz and Administrator, Karachi Municipal Corporation through registered post and TCS, whereas according to Nisha Ayaz, the respondent it was 28th July 2000, when her husband left her at the house of her mother. She denies the receipt of divorce deed through post or TCS. However, in January 2001, the respondent filed two suits being family suits Nos.57 and 58 of 2001, for maintenance and recovery of dower amount respectively. She pleaded that after leaving her at mother's house on 28-7-2000, Suhail Majeed, the petitioner did not provide her maintenance. She also pleaded that dower amount Rs,10,00,000 was not paid to her. The respondent admitted the non payment of maintenance taking position that after pronouncing divorce on 6-8-1997, he was not liable for providing maintenance to the lady. In respect of dower amount he claimed the same to have been paid to the lady through cheque.
2. The family Judge decreed both the suits by single judgment on 3-12-2002, whereby Suhail Majeed was directed to pay to Nisha Ayaz the amount of dower plus maintenance at the rate of Rs,5,000 per month from 28-7-2000 till 20-8-2002. It will be relevant to mention here that 20-8-2002 was the date when the period of ninety days expired after receipt of notice of divorce by the concerned Union Council from the Office of Administrator, Karachi Municipal Corporation. Suhail Majeed, the petitioner appealed against the judgment/decree through Family Appeals Nos.2 and 3 of 2003. Also respondent Nisha Ayaz filed an appeal against same judgment/decree pleading the amount of maintenance to be inadequate. The Appellate Court i,e,, learned District Judge (South) Karachi by single judgment dated 9-8-2003, dismissed the appeals filed by Suhail Majeed the petitioner and accepted the appeal of Nisha Ayaz enhancing monthly maintenance from Rs,5,000 to Rs,10,000. The said judgment has been assailed by Suahil Majeed through above mentioned three Constitutional petitions. Mr. Abdul Samad learned Advocate representing the petitioner agitated the ground of limitation arguing that the two Courts below accepted the pronouncement of divorce through divorce deed dated 6-8-1997, by allowing maintenance to respondent Nisha Ayaz till 20-8-2002, when the period of 90 days expired after receipt of the same divorce deed by concerned union council from the office of Administrator Karachi Municipal Corporation and kept aside the legal position that divorce became effective on expiry of ninety days after its receipt by the Administrator, KMC, who was the council concerned. The learned advocate further argued that after giving effect to divorce deed dated 6-8-1997, the time for filing suit for recovery of prompt dower should have been computed from that date.
3. According to him if the time is computed from the date of divorce or even from the date of arrival of the divorce deed at office of the Administrator, KMC then also the suit filed in January 2001, was much beyond the period of three years provided by Article 103 Limitation Act but the learned two Courts below simply ignored that position. Mr. Adnan Ahmad, advocate appearing for the lady respondent defended the impugned decisions arguing that delivery of divorce deed to Nisha Ayaz has not been proved, therefore, time for recovery of dower computed from the date when she got the knowledge or notice of the divorce.
4. He further contended that under the law the divorce became effective only on expiry of 90 days after its arrival at the office of concerned Union Council and not prior to that. For better appreciation of the respective contentions of parties counsel section 7(1) of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, has to be examined thoroughly, it reads as under:- "Talaq (1) Any man who wishes to divorce his wife shall, as soon as may be after the pronouncement of Talaq in any form whatsoever, give the Chairman notice in writing of his having done so, and shall supply a copy thereof to the wife.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
5. (3).
6. (4).
7. (5)..
8. (6)..
9. The wording of sub section (1) brings out that a person having pronounced Talaq in any form is required to give the Chairman a written notice of his having done so and shall supply copy thereof to the wife. Thus notice of Talaq to the wife is also the requirement of law. Sub section 2 provides for the penalty in shape of imprisonment or fine for contravention of the sub-section (1). It is, therefore, clear that the compliance of sub-section (1) is mandatory.
10. Absence of intimation to wife about the notice of Talaq to the Chairman would suspend the count of days till the wife gets copy of the notice or intimation thereof. In present case the concurrent finding of the learned two Courts below on the question of fact as to whether the copy of divorce deed was actually supplied to the wife is in negative. The Courts rightly accepted the presumption of service by dispatch of the envelope on correct address to have been successfully rebutted on oath by lady Nisha Ayaz. It was also rightly held that the petitioner Suhail Majeed had not been able to prove delivery of divorce deed to Nisha Ayaz.
11. In absence of proof of the delivery of the copy of divorce deed to the wife she is deemed to have got intimation or notice about the divorce deed only when the petitioner made disclosure about it in his written statement filed on 28th February 2001. Since the lady/wife got intimation about the notice to the Administrator, KMC, on 28-2-2001, the time shall start from that date. This way the ninety days expired on 29-5-2001 and the Talaq became effective from that date. Obviously the lady respondent would be entitled to the maintenance till that date. However, the enhancement of the rate of maintenance by the learned Appellate Court is based upon proper reasoning and appreciation D of the material on the record. It does not suffer from any legal infirmity. As regards the dower amount the period of three years provided for its recovery under Article 103 Limitation Act it starts from the notice of divorce to the concerned council and wife. As mentioned above, although the notice was sent to concerned council earlier, but the wife got knowledge of the divorce on 28-2-2001, therefore, the suit having been filed in January 2001, could not be time barred. The Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of lady respondent. In the light of above discussions the impugned decisions are maintained except modification in the period for which maintenance has been allowed. It will be from 28-7-2000 to 29-5-2001. With the above modifications in the order the petitions are dismissed with costs.