The petitioner, Sajjad Haider Malik, has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned orders dated 9-2-1988 and 21-4-1987 passed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2, respectively, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The case in brief is that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were married according to Muslim Law and they have given birth to two children. Respondent No. 3 moved an application under section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, for grant of maintenance allowance to her from 1-3-1984 to 30-4-1987 at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month vide Annexure `A'. The petitioner failed to appear before the Chairman Arbitration Council in order to contest the application filed by the respondent. The Chairman Arbitration Council passed an ex parte order on 21-4-1987 and proceeded to award maintenance allowance to respondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month. A sum of Rs. 1,12,300 was also granted to her as past maintenance. It was specifically directed that the amount of maintenance allowance shall be paid by the petitioner within fifteen days' time. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of this order of the Chairman Arbitration Council went in revision before the Collector, Lahore, which was heard and dismissed by him on 9-2-1988.
3. The contention is that the order of the Chairman Arbitration Council granting maintenance allowance to respondent No. 3 being ex parte is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that it is established on record that the petitioner was never served with notice sent to him by the Chairman Arbitration Council. It is next argued that the grant of maintenance allowance is far beyond the means of the petitioner and that the same is excessive. It is stated that the petitioner is a Diploma-holder from P.T.C. Institute and his monthly pay is Rs. 2,300 only. He offered to pay a sum of Rs. 500 per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that a petition for grant of maintenance allowance was pending before the Chairman, Arbitration Council and that he intentionally failed to appear before him to contest the petition. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that there is sufficient evidence available on record to show that a sum of Rs.
3,000 per month was correctly and rightly allowed to the respondent as maintenance allowance by both the Chairman, Arbitration Council and the learned revisional authority on the basis of very cogent and trustworthy evidence. It was next submitted that the petitioner was adequately heard by the revisional forum.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is particularly noted that a registered A.D. Notice was sent to the petitioner for his appearance before the Chairman Arbitration Council and despite his service he failed to appear before him to contest the case. It has been found out that A.D. Receipt is available on record with signatures of the petitioner to show that he was duly served. Further, the petitioner was served with a notice by means of its publication in the press. Despite the publication of notice in the Press, the petitioner did not attend the office of the Chairman Arbitration Council and as such an ex parte order was passed against him on 21-4-1987. It was observed by the Chairman that a son aged 5 years and a daughter are also living with the respondent and are being maintained by her. The respondent alongwith her 2 children is living with her father. The learned Collector Lahore vide his order dated 9-2-1988 held that the petitioner had knowledge about the pendency of proceedings against him for the grant of maintenance before the Chairman, Arbitration Council. It was specifically observed in the revisional order that the petitioner sent letter to the Chairman, Arbitration Council which letter is also available at page 11 of the file requesting for another date. This shows beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioner did know about pendency of the petition for grant of maintenance allowance against him before the Chairman Arbitration Council. It is also proved beyond doubt that he intentionally failed to contest the maintenance petition. Thus, in my view, the Chairman Arbitration Council had a sufficient legal justification to proceed ex parte against the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner has adequately been heard by the learned Collector Lahore in his revision petition. According to the revisional order some modification in the order was made and the maintenance allowance regarding three years was allowed to the respondent. It was observed by the revisional forum that the petitioner has been drawing him salary at the rate of Rs. 7,500 per month when he was employed in Abu Dhabi. In the application of the respondent (Annexure `A') it was mentioned by her that the petitioner was employed m Abu Dhabi before her marriage with him and he was getting a salary of Rs. 7,500 per month. The respondent went to Abu Dhabi in the year 1981 to join her husband. However, in the year 1982 she was sent back to Pakistan because she was pregnant and that on 25-10-1982 a son was born to the parties. It was disclosed in the application for maintenance allowance that the petitioner tendered his resignation from his service and that he returned to Pakistan. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner came back from Abu Dhabi in the year 1982. The respondent has further stated that the petitioner was employed in Karachi in the month of September; 1983 and that his monthly income was Rs. 10,000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is not an iota of evidence on record to show that he has been earning Rs. 10,000 per month. It is conceded in the written arguments that the petitioner's total income is Rs. 2,300. On this basis it is stated that the petitioner is not in a position to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month to the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner came back to Pakistan from abroad in the year 1982 and maintenance allowance was allowed to the respondent for the period from 1984 to 1987 for three years. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner is earning beyond Rs. 2,300 per month at present. I specifically asked the learned counsel for the contesting respondent to demonstrate before me that income of the petitioner is Rs. 10,000 a month. He was unable to show that the petitioner is earning Rs. 10,000 per month. Thus, there is no alternative left except to come to the conclusion that monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 2,300. It is conceded by the petitioner that he has two issues from the respondent and both son and daughter are living with their mother. There is no evidence available on record to show that the petitioner has been regularly sending maintenance allowance to the respondent or to his son and daughter. The minor son is now aged more than five years and is receiving his education. During the proceedings of this writ petition the parties tried to enter into a compromise. They were given time to reach some sort of compromise regarding payment of maintenance to the respondent. The petitioner is adamant that he cannot pay more than Rs. 500 as maintenance allowance to, the respondent as well as to his two minor son and daughter. Admittedly, the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 2,300. In my view, grant of Rs. 500 per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent as well as her two minor children shall be grossly insufficient. Under the circumstances, I reduce the maintenance allowance from Rs. 3,000 per month to Rs. 1,500 per month and consequently, the total amount of the past maintenance shall also be reduced from Rs. 1,12,300 to Rs. 56,150 which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent as past maintenance. It may be observed here that father of respondent No. 3 who was present in Court voluntarily offered that he is ready to reduce her past maintenance to Rs. 75,000. With the above modification in the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, I proceed to reject the writ petition leaving the parties to bear their own cost.