' This petition was admitted for regular hearing by my learned brother Ihsanul-Haq Chaudhry, J. On 22-1-1994. The petition was fixed for hearing on 25-4-1994. On that date no one appeared for respondent No,2 despite service was affected upon him. So, he was proceeded ex parte by the same Bench.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is being invoked against the order passed by the District Collector, Gujrat dated 2-3-1993 by which he reversed the finding of the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ward No, 20, Municipal Committee, Gujrat dated 5-11-1991 granting the maintenance allowance to the petitioner for a period of three years till the completion of Iddat. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the respondent was married with the petitioner and lived with him for about 6/7 years; gave birth to two children, namely, Mujahid (8 years) and Akhtar (7 years). Both the children are in the custody of the mother. According to the petitioner's counsel she was expelled from her husband's house alongwith her children 5/6 years ago from the filing of the writ petition. Ultimately, the petitioner was divorced on 5-8-1991.
3. The petitioner filed an application dated 20-8-1991 before the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ward No, 20, Municipal Committee, Gujrat for the grant of future as well as the past maintenance for period of three years at the rate of Rs,1,500 p.m. For herself. After recording evidence of the representatives of the parties the Chairman, Arbitration Council awarded the petitioner Rs,1,000 as past maintenance for a period of three years and also fixed the same for her further maintenance.
This order was assailed in revision petition by the respondent No,2. His petition was accepted and the case was remanded back to the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Municipal Committee vide order dated 12-5-1992. After the remand of the case the Chairman, Arbitration Council after recording the statements of the parties again decreed the maintenance allowance of Rs,1,000 for a period from 15-12-1990 to 5-11-1991 vide order dated 23-7-1992. The respondent again filed a transfer application before the District Collector, Gujrat for the change of the Chairman of the said Arbitration Council. This application of the respondent was accepted vide order dated 3-11-1992. In the meantime the Chairman had awarded aforesaid decree to the petitioner. In consequence of the above said order the matter was entrusted to the said Chairman after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties and hearing the petitioner awarded maintenance allowance of Rs,1,000 for a period of three years till 5-11-1991 when the divorce was affected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 23-7-1992 the respondent again filed a revision petition before the District Collector, Gujrat who accepted the same on 2-3-1993 with the observation that the amount of maintenance fixed by the Chairman was excessive and exhorbitant. The District Collector, Gujrat based his judgment on a copy of the order of the Family Court, Gujrat dated 17-12-1992, tendered by the respondent whereby the minor children were granted maintenance of Rs,400 each from the period of 1-9-1991 onward. So, the District Collector, Gujrat reversed the finding of the. Arbitration Council and reduced the maintenance allowance to the period of three months i,e, the Iddat period. The petitioner has challenged the order of the District Collector on the basis that the District Collector has not applied his mind to the facts and record of the case and true appraisal of the evidence of the parties recorded during the arbitration proceedings. So, his order dated 2-3-1993 is completely outcome of the misapplication of his mind and in complete disregard of mandatory provision of law relevant to the petitioner's case. He has further argued that the proceedings before the Family Court were entirely different from the proceedings pending before the Arbitration Council.
Moreover, the family suit had different facts and circumstances altogether from that of the petitioner.
4. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the order passed by the District Collector, Gujrat is completely devoid of reasons and application of mind to the facts, law and circumstances relevant to the case of the petitioner. It is surprising that in all the three petitions the same District Collector without going through the merits of the case was deciding the case of the petitioner against her. The Chairman of both the Arbitration Councils have rightly awarded the decree for the maintenance of the petitioner who was a destitute lady with two children and absolutely without any means of earning. Since the Chairman, Arbitration Council had no authority to grant maintenance for the children so the petitioner had to file a suit before the Family Court under the Family Courts Act.
5. Both the proceedings before the Arbitration Council and the Family Court are entirely different.
The provisions of section 9 of the Family Laws Ordinance provides the maintenance to a wife only on entirely different grounds and the Family Court is guided by all the law laid down in the Family Courts Act where the wife or the children can invoke their right of the maintenance allowance and the maintenance allowance cannot exceed the period of six months retrospectively. So, the District Collector has erroneously based his judgment on the basis of the Family Court decree for the children. The judgment passed by the District Collector was also devoid of all considerations that it is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife who is not demanding divorce and she is a mother of two children. Moreover, on all the three stages i,e, to say passing of his first order on 12-5-1991 while reversing the maintenance allowance passed by the Arbitration Council on 11-5-1991; against acceptance of the transfer application vide order dated 3-11-1991 and in the second round of litigation on 2-3-1993 reversing the decree of the Chairman, Arbitration Council (the transferee Court), the District Court altogether ignored the fact that the lady involving her right of maintenance was C punished by her husband through divorce deed and the District Collector had not appraised the evidence produced by the parties. The order of the Arbitration Council was completely legal order and based upon the true appraisal of the evidence.
6. In view of the above observation, I set aside the order of the District Collector, Gujrat dated 2-3- 1993 and maintain the decree of the Arbitration Council, Municipal Committee, Gujrat dated 23-7- 1992. The petitioner may execute this decree in the manner prescribed by law.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.