ORDER MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.3 despite service. Respondent No.3 is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. This petition assails the undated review order passed by respondent No.2 (Chairman, Arbitration Council-Nazim, Union Council No.92, Lahore) and the revisional; order dated 22-6-2009 passed by respondent No.1 [District Officer (Revenue), Lahore] upon the applications of respondent No.3.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was married to respondent No.3 on 3-5-2003. Out of this wedlock two daughters were born now aged about 6 and 5 years respectively. During the year, 2005 respondent No.3 turned the petitioner out of the matrimonial home when she was pregnant with the second child. On 9-1-2006 the petitioner filed an application for maintenance before respondent No 2 under section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The said application of the petitioner was accepted and through an order dated 5-5-2006 the maintenance of the petitioner was fixed at the rate of Rs.5.000 per month from June, 2005 to April. 2006 or till the subsistence of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3.
The delivery expenses of both minors amounting to Rs.5,000 each were also awarded to the petitioner. Consequent thereto respondent No.3 divorced the petitioner and the Talaq effectiveness certificate was issued on 5-6-2006. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 filed a review petition before respondent No.2 who reviewed his order/ decree dated 5-5-2006 through an undated order without notice to the petitioner. The monthly maintenance allowance awarded to the petitioner through the order dated 5-5-2006 was reduced to Rs.4,000 per month from June, 2005 till the subsistence of marriage. The delivery expenses, however, of both minors amounting to Rs.5,000 each were awarded to the petitioner.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the review order respondent No.3 filed a revision petition on 7-4-2007 before respondent No.1 challenging the decree dated 5-5-2006 after a lapse of almost ten months.
Respondent No.1 accepted the revision petition and reduced the monthly maintenance of the petitioner to Rs.3,000 per month i.e.f. 3-7-2005 to 25-2-2006 and awarded only Rs.5,000 as delivery expenses for both minor.
5. The petitioner has assailed the undated review order as also the revisional order dated 22-6- 2009, inter alia, on the grounds that the review order was passed in absence of the petitioner, hence, she has been condemned unheard, the revision petition was patently time barred but this fact was not adverted to by respondent No.1. The revisional order as also the review order have been passed in oblivion of the provisions of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 no power of review is provided and even otherwise under section 24-A of the General Clauses Act the review of the order dated 5-5-2006 was not warranted. The impugned order dated 22-6-2009 has been passed by neglecting the fact that the Talaq between the parties became effective on 5-6-2006 and the Iddat period lasted till 4-9-2006.
The petitioner has been deprived of maintenance even for the Iddat period. Moreover, the quantum of maintenance has been reduced arbitrarily from Rs.5,000 to Rs.3,000 without any cogent reason.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgments reported as Mst. Hajran Bibi v.
Khalid Abbas and others (1991 CLC 831), M. Javed Iqbal v. Mst. Tahira Naveed (2002 CLC 1748) and Razi Ahmad v. Mst. Saima Shafi and others (2004 CLC 637) to contend that the delivery expenses should have been awarded to the petitioner. Moreover, also contends that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the impugned orders. Indeed, respondent No.2 had denied the petitioner the very right of hearing which is even otherwise violative of the . Provisions of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 1973.
Further submits that the impugned orders have been passed in derogation of the provisions of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, inasmuch as the impugned orders are non-speaking orders and have been passed in a mechanical manner without application of a judicial mind.
7. I have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have filed their parawise comments which are basically a repetition of the impugned orders. No reason has been given as to why the petitioner was not given a right of hearing by respondent No.2 whilst passing the undated impugned review order nor has any explanation been given regarding violation of the provisions of section 24-A of the Act ibid, whilst passing the impugned revisional order. Respondent No.3 despite service has not entered appearance and has, therefore, been proceeded against ex parte.
8. I find that there is force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled law that the power of review is a statutory right. The Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, do not provide the power of review to the Chairman of an Arbitration Council. The legislature in its wisdom has, however, provided the remedy of a revision under section 9(2) of the Ordinance, ibid. In the instant case respondent No.2 eventually did exercise that right before respondent No.1. The impugned undated review order is a nullity in the eye of the law not only for the reason mentioned above but also for the reason that it was passed behind the petitioner's back without providing her with an opportunity of hearing. As to the revisional order the same is also not sustainable for A being firstly a non-speaking order and being violative of the provisions of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and secondly on the ground that the revision petition was patently time-barred.
9. I, therefore, accept this petition and set aside both the impugned orders with the result that the order dated 5-5-2006 of respondent No.2 stands revived. It is, however, added that the petitioner shall be also entitled to recover maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000 per month for the period of her Iddat which amount has not been awarded to her through the order dated 5-5-2006.