' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises out of a maintenance matter. Mst. Qamar Fatima, respondent No,3, was married to Javed Akhtar petitioner on 11th April, 1985. Unfortunately, disputes and differences arose between them. An application under section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 was filed by respondent No,3 against the petitioner for grant of maintenance. This petition was accepted by the Arbitration Council Ward No,99 on 18th June, 1986, and the petitioner was directed to pay arrears as well as future maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,500 per month. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed a revision before the Collector, who partly accepted it and reduced the rate of maintenance from Rs,1,500 to Rs,450. Still feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition.
2. I have heard Mr. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. B.A. Fakhri, Advocate, for the respondent.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the record of proceedings has been manipulated and fabricated by the Chairman, and that the petitioner was not granted any reasonable opportunity of defending the proceedings. In particular, it was objected that the entire proceedings were conducted by the Secretary of the Union Council concerned instead of the Chairman as required by law.
4. The Collector, while hearing the revision petition had observed that the Arbitration Council has recorded the statements of the witnesses of the petitioner before recording the evidence of the witnesses of the respondent. It was also observed that there was a legal lacuna in the case. At the time of the hearing of the writ petition, the record produced by the Secretary of the Union Council was examined which supported the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the Collector himself was of the view that there was a lacuna in the case, and had proceeded to condone the delay on that basis, he should have, instead of reducing the rate of maintenance, set aside the order of the Arbitration Council as a whole and remanded the matter to it for reconsideration. Unfortunately, the Collector failed to adopt the only course of action which was available to him under the law without assigning any reason. It is evident on the face of the record that there has been no proper trial of the application of maintenance filed by the respondent/wife.
' As a result of what has been said above, this petition is accepted, and the orders are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the application for maintenance filed by respondent No,3 shall be deemed to be pending before the Arbitration Council and shall be decided afresh.