' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the order of the District Collector, Lahore, dated 2nd of April, 1991, whereby he maintained the order of the Arbitration Council dated 6th of December, 1990, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife Mst. Sumaira Shahzadi, respondent No,1, at the rate of Rs,1800 per month with effect from the 1st of August, 1984.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had the means to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,800 per month and, on the other hand, it was established that the take home emoluments of the petitioner, who was working in the State Bank of Pakistan, were Rs,4,000, out of which he has to maintain his father besides another wife and two children apart from respondent No,1
3. The question as to quantum of income of the petitioner is primarily one of the fact and has been found by the Arbitration Council as also by the Collector concurrently against him. It has been observed on the basis of the evidence led by respondent No,1 that apart from working in the State Bank of Pakistan, the petitioner was also carrying property business alongwith other relatives. It is neither permissible nor possible to reappraise evidence in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It may also be mentioned that out of Rs,1,800 per month awarded, respondent No,1 has also to maintain her two children of school-going age. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 has made a statement that he shall not claim any maintenance for the two children and the suit filed by her in this behalf shall be withdrawn. In this view of the matter, the award of maintenance of Rs,1,800 per month cannot by any stretch of reasoning be said to be excessive.
4. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Courts below have erred in granting arrears of maintenance to respondent No,1 with effect from Ist of August, 1984. This contention again raises a question of fact which both the Courts below after due consideration have found against the petitioner. There is no illegality much less jurisdictional defect committed by the authorities below so as to justify interference by this Court.
' This petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.