1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner Said Rehman against the order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 13-12-1988, arising out of a suit brought by Mst. Bacha Haram respondent No.1 against the petitioner, for dissolution of her marriage and recovery of three tolas gold as her dower before the Court of EA.C. Chakdara with powers of Deputy/Commissioner under PATH Regulation II of 1975, on the ground that the petitioner apart from being cruel with the respondent No.1 had failed to fulfil her part of conjugal rights. The petitioner also filed a counter-suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the cases were referred to a Tribunal constituted under the Regulation wherein majority of the Jirga members made recommendations to the E.A.C. In favour of the respondent No.1 that a decree for dissolution and recovery of three tolas gold as dower money be passed against the petitioner and his suit for conjugal rights was recommended for dismissal.
2. The learned E.A.C. Disregarded the recommendations of the majority of the Jirga members and vide his order dated 26-11-1984 ordered a fresh Jirga. Mst. Bacha Haram respondent No.1 riled appeal against this order before the Addl. Commissioner Malakand who while accepting the appeal, set aside the order dated 26-11-1984 of the EA.C. And passed a decree for dissolution of marriage and recovery of three tolas gold in favour of the respondent No.1. The petitioner's revision petition before the Additional Secretary (Home) Govt. Of N.-W.F.P. Was accepted and vide his order dated 8-12-1986 remanded the case for decision on the recommendations of a fresh Jirga. This order was challenged by the respondent No.1 in a writ petition before the Peshawar High Court which was accepted by the learned Judges of a Division Bench of the High Court who while accepting the writ petition set aside the order of the Addl. Secretary (Home) and restored that of the Addl. Commissioner (II), decreeing the suit of the respondent No.1.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that no case for interference with the order of the learned High Court has been made out. The writ petition of the respondent No.1 was allowed mainly on the point that the Additional Secretary (Home) acted in excess of his jurisdiction under section 12 of the PATA Regulation II of 1975 as he was not competent to tamper the findings of a, Tribunal arrived on question of fact, which has attained the finality before the Additional Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner neither pointed out any legal defect nor he argued before us any question of general public importance involved in the case.
4. Thus in our opinion the learned Judges of the High Court while accepting the writ petition of the respondent No.1, have rightly set aside the order of the Additional Secretary (Home) and restored that of the Additional Commissioner (II) Malakand Division.
5. Under the circumstances, this petition has no merit which accordingly, is dismissed.