' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---Through this writ petition Mst. Rubina Bibi petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 21-4-2004 passed by respondent No.2, District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and set aside the order dated 26-4-2003 passed by the Chairman Arbitration Council/Nazim Union Council No.37, Qutabpur Tehsil Dunyapur District Lodhran in an application for recovery of maintenance allowance filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 1.
2. Briefly the facts of case are that petitioner filed an application for the recovery of maintenance allowance before Arbitration Council, U.C. No.37 Qutabpur District, Lodhran on 20-2-2003 against the respondent No.1 contending therein that she was married to respondent on 27-2-1998 and he had turned out her from his house three years ago so, she demanded her past maintenance too at the rate of Rs.3,000 per month along with future maintenance and Rs.6,000 as medical charges.
The same was decreed at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month from 26-4-2000 to 26-4-2003 along with medical charges Rs.6,000. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved preferred an revision petition before the District Officer (Revenue) Lodhran who vide his order dated 21-4-2004 accepted the revision and set aside the order passed by the Chairman Arbitration Council. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is against the law and facts of the case and is also the outcome of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record. Further submits that revision petition was time-barred and the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily in a slipshod manner. He has relied on "Aurangzeb Khan v. Deputy Commissioner/Controlling Authority Narowal and others" 2002 YLR 3185, "Muhammad Javed Akhtar v. Collector and others" 1991 CLC 1356 and "Muhammad Hanif v.
Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Kasur and others" PLD 1982 Lahore 239 wherein it has been held that limitation for filing revision against order of maintenance passed by Arbitration Council being thirty days, revision filed beyond period of one month would be barred by time.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that a wife who refuses to live with her husband and performs her matrimonial obligations is not entitled for maintenance allowance. Further submits that the respondent No.2 has rightly passed a speaking order as there is no scope under the Personal Law for the grant of past maintenance. He has relied on "Syed Hamid Ali Shah v. Mst. Razia Sultana" 1991 CLC 766.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. A bare perusal of record shows that respondent No.1, Muhammad Bashir Ahmad filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against petitioner Mst. Rubina Bibi before the learned Judge Family Court, Lodhran which was decreed vide his judgment and decree dated 3-12-2003 and even after passing of decree she had not joined her husband. Chairman Arbitration Council passed an ex parte order wherein neither the respondent No.1 nor his representative was present.
6. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is silent so far as past maintenance is concerned, therefore, the Court while interpreting the statute must keep in mind the intention of the Legislature. A wife who does not bother to live with her husband and perform her marital obligation is not entitled for the grant of maintenance allowance. Here in this case the petitioner lived separately and even has not performed the marital obligations in spite of decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent No. 1 . For what has been discussed above I find that respondent No.2 has rightly passed the detailed order which needs no interference by this Court in Constitutional petition.
Instant writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. .