' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has impugned the orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner and respondent No,1 were married in accordance with Muslim rites. It seems that the relations between them became strained. The result was that respondent No,1 moved to respondent No,2 for grant of maintenance. The said respondent issued notice to the petitioner. Thereafter proceeded ex parte on 23-4-1988 and allowed the maintenance to respondent No,1 at the rate of Rs,4,000 per month. The petitioner impugned this order through revision before respondent No,3, who after hearing the parties dismissed the same vide order dated 25-7-1989. The petitioner has challenged both the impugned orders through this petition.
The same was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents.
' The respondent No,1 alone has appeared and contested the petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is nothing on record as to the paying capacity of the petitioner and there was no basis in the absence of such evidence to fix maintenance at the rate of Rs,4,000 per month. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to the case of Muhammad Qasim v. Tahir Memon etc. 1987 CLC 649 . It is added that the proceedings before respondent No,2 are all fake. In this behalf learned counsel has referred to interim order dated 16-4-1988, according to which the matter was adjourned to 23-4-1988. It is submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner, therefore, there was no justification to proceed ex parte against him on the later date. It is added that in fact the respondent No,2 recorded the statements on 16-4-1988. The same have been placed on record as Annexures D2 and D3.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondent argued that the petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 23-4-1988 and the respondent No,3 has explained in his statement by recorded by respondent No,2 that the order dated 16-4-1988 was got signed from him deceitfully by the petitioner.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and precedent case. The admitted position is that there was no basis in the absence of the paying capacity A of the petitioner, to fix the maintenance at the rate of Rs,4,000. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on the case of Muhammad Qasim ibid. The orders of respondents Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be set aside on this short ground.
6. Now coming to the order dated 16-4-1988 the respondent No,3 has tried to explain the existence of two orders fixing maintenance of respondent No,1 in the same file. The explanation does not inspire any confidence especially in view of the fact that he also recorded the statements of the witnesses of wife on the said date. The statements bear the signatures of the witnesses. There is no explanation for the same. It is, therefore, held that the proceedings conducted by the respondent are fake and liable to be set aside.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is allowed with costs and the impugned orders of respondents Nos.2 and 3 are set aside.
' The result is that the application of respondent No,1 for the grant of maintenance shall be deemed pending and respondent No,2 is directed to entrust the same for decision to an Arbitration Council other than respondent No,3.