' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 25- 4-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No,14107 of 2002.
2. The dispute between the parties is regarding the maintenance of children of the petitioner which was awarded by the Arbitration Council. The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the Arbitration Council before the District Collector, Toba Tek Singh, which was treated as revision petition and was dismissed, by order, dated 11-5-2002. Therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,14107 of 2002 which was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court, by the impugned judgment, dated 25-4-2003. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2-A. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Arbitration Council was not properly constituted. The amount of maintenance was excessive. Moreover, the revision petition was erroneously dismissed by the Collector as barred by time merely on the ground that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, were not applicable.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The order dated 26-7-2001 of the Arbitration Council clearly shows that the petitioner failed to appear before the same on 30- 10-2000 and thereafter on many dates. The letter sent by the petitioner through his Commanding Officer is also indicative of his knowledge of the proceedings before the Arbitration Council. The High Court recorded a finding of fact that the amount of Rs,1,000 per month as past maintenance and Rs,1,500 per month as future maintenance for two sons and wife of the petitioner was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner was bound under the Islamic Law to provide maintenance of his children. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No,1 acted within his jurisdiction to dismiss the revision petition of the petitioner as being barred by time. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with the quantum of maintenance by the competent forum in the absence of any exceptional circumstances. The learned counsel could not demonstrate as to how the Arbitration Council was not properly constituted. In our view, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity. This petition does not involve any question of law of public importance so as to warrant interfere by this Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.
Leave to appeal refused.