The petitioner, Muhammad Badar-ul-Muneer, has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned order dated 18-10-1986 of the Chairman, Arbitration Council and the order dated 28-6-1988 passed by the learned Collector, Lahore may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. On the basis of the evidence produced by respondent No.3, the Chairman Arbitration Council granted maintenance allowance to her at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month and the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.39,000 in lump sum from 1-3-1985 to 15-10-1986. This order was confirmed by the learned Collector, Lahore, vide his order dated 28-6-1988.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions for consideration by this Court.
Firstly, he contends that the Chairman Arbitration Council did not hear the petitioner and that the impugned order of the Chairman Arbitration Council being ex parte is liable to be set aside.
Secondly, he states that there is no evidence whatsoever available on record to show that the petitioner is employed in Saudi Arabia and that he is earning Rs.15,000 per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chairman Arbitration Council proceeded to decide the application of respondent No.3 against him in presence of the stay order having been issued by the learned Collector. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner .Was duly served and that he knew the fact of pendency of the application for maintenance against him. He further maintained that despite his knowledge the petitioner filed a time-barred revision before the learned Collector. On merits, the learned counsel submitted that it has been proved beyond doubt that the petitioner being employed abroad was earning about Rs.15,000 per month.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There is absolutely no substance in the contentions having been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner knew fully well that an application for grant of maintenance allowance was pending adjudication before the Chairman, Arbitration Council and this fact was adequately mentioned by him in his transfer application moved by him before the learned Collector, Lahore. At this stage, the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that he did not know about the pendency of the proceedings for maintenance against him before the Chairman, Arbitration Council. Additionally, the transfer application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Collector on 21-7-1987. The period of limitation for filing revision to the Collector is thirty days and even if the period of limitation is counted from 21-7-1987 onward, the revision of the petitioner before the Collector is apparently barred by limitation. The petitioner, admittedly, challenged the order of the Chairman, Arbitration Council on 19-12-1987. Thus, the revision of the petitioner was rightly and legally dismissed as time- barred by two months and one day and the petitioner wholly failed to give any plausible explanation for this' delay in the institution of the revision petition. In my considered view, it is established on record beyond doubt that the petitioner knew fully well about the pendency of the application for grant of maintenance before the Chairman, Arbitration Council and as such he cannot be permitted under law to say that the ex parte order having been passed against him is without any legal basis. The petitioner. Filed a time-barred revision which was rightly rejected by the learned Collector. The petitioner is the husband and as such under law he is bound to maintain his own wife. Last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount of maintenance allowance is excessive and that fact and circumstances of the case in hand were not kept in view while fixing the exorbitant rate of maintain allowance. Learned counsel has requested for reduction in the rate of maintenance allowance. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if some reasonable reduction in the maintenance allowance is made. Accordingly I reduce the maintenance allowance from Rs.2,000 per month to Rs.1,500 per month and reduction in the accumulated amount of maintenance allowance allowed by the Chairman Arbitration Council to the respondent shall also be ratably made. With this observation there is no substance in the petition which is dismissed.