' A husband has through this Writ Petition called in question order of the Arbitration Council constituted under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, passed on 13th July 1974 whereby, while granting the certificate that the attempt at reconciliation on a notice of divorce by the petitioner to the respondent had failed and divorce had become effective, the Council also passed a decree against the petitioner in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs, 25,141 as value of her dowry allegedly forcibly snatched/retained and misappropriated by the petitioner.
' On the last hearing learned counsel for respondent No, 2 had contended that even if the Arbitration Council had no jurisdiction to grant a decree for money in lieu of dowry, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of this court on account of the facts mentioned in the impugned order. He had pointed out that according to the impugned order the petitioner had while forcibly snatching/ retaining the dowry of the petitioner, removed the bangles from her hands so much so that marks of physical violence on her hands, in this behalf, were visible. It was also pointed out that the petitioner did not appear before the Arbitration Council to controvert the allegations and assertion made by the respondent that her dowry worth over Rs, 25,000 had been retained by the petitioner.
3. After hearing both the learned counsel I thought that the question raised by the learned counsel for the respondent could not be gone into without affording an opportunity to the parties to offer explanation in this behalf. 1, therefore, directed their appearance. Today the petitioner has been asked as to why the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent be not taken into account. He has attempted to offer an explanation which is not relevant to the afore noted question because he has related only the circumstances in which the marriage became a failure and he divorced the respondent. With regard to the observations made in the impugned order, particularly the circumstance that marks of physical violence were observed on the hands of the respondent which showed that her bangles had been forcibly removed, the petitioner has not made any explanation except the bare denial with regard to the retention/snatching of the dowry.
When told that the allegations against him if tried in proper forum and proved to be true, might entail consequences detrimental to him qua his service, he stated that he could do nothing in this behalf except to deny the allegations.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while admitting that the proper forum including Civil/Criminal Courts and Administrative authorities might be competent to go into of the allegations made by the respondent, argued that Arbitration Council had no jurisdiction, therefore, this petition merits dismissal.
5. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitration Council had no jurisdiction to grant a decree in favour of the respondent for money in lieu of her dowry. The proper course for the .4 council was to leave this matter to be decided by proper forums. The decree is, therefore, without jurisdiction and merits to be set aside as such. I order accordingly.
6. As the petitioner would have a right of defending himself in aforementioned proper forums qua the assertions and allegations made against him by the respondent, therefore, it would not be proper to pre judge his case by dismissing his Writ Petition on the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. This aspect of the case is left to be brought before proper forum including Civil/Criminal Courts and Administrative authorities in proper proceedings, without any further comment as to the strength or otherwise of the allegations made and/or evidence led before the. Arbitration Council.
7. With the above observations this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside as without lawful authority, but there shall be no order as to costs.