' This petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 5-3-1990, passed by the Collector, Lahore whereby he dismissed the revision petition against the order dated 17-61989, passed by the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ward No,125, Data Darbar, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs,14,000 towards maintenance allowance to Mst. Shamim Akhtar, respondent No,3 herein, at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month from the period commencing April, 1988 to June 1989.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Chairman, Arbitration Council, respondent No,2 herein, has acted illegally in exercise of his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order, in that, on 16-6-1988 the case was adjourned to enable the petitioner to produce his evidence but behind his back the case was decided against him on 17-6-1989.
3. This contention has no force. The learned Collector after appreciating the material available in the case, recorded a finding Or fact that the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity granted to him by the Chairman to produce evidence to support his version. The record also shows that the petitioner had been associated with the proceedings before the Chairman, Arbitration Council but declined to produce any witness or cross-examine the witnesses produced by the contesting respondent. Adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner to pursue his case. It cannot, therefore, be held that the impugned order of the Chairman, Arbitration Council was violative of the principles of natural justice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the impugned maintenance amount is too excessive and the financial position of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order.
This controversy is also concluded by an adverse concurrent finding of e fact against the petitioner which is not open to interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
5. It is next contended that the expenses are not covered by section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and in any case respondent No,3 refused to live with the petitioner during the subsistence of their marriage without any reasonable excuse and, therefore, she was not entitled to the grant of maintenance allowance and particularly the medical expenses.
' The contention is devoid of any force. A finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Collector that respondent No,3 was beaten by the petitioner in consequence of which her arm had broken and in connection with her medical treatment, the disputed amount was incurred. In any event, the matter pertaining to the grant of maintenance falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court or Arbitration Council. The impugned order having been passed after proper appreciation of evidence is not open to scrutiny in judicial review. Learned counsel has failed to cite any authority that the amount spent on medical treatment is not admissible under section 9 of the Ordinance.
' In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.