1. ' By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed as follows:-- "(a) To declare that impugned judgment and decree dated 20-11-1997 passed by the learned respondent No,1, in Family Suit No,1101 of 1992 filed by respondent No,3 against the petitioner for recovery of maintenance is illegal, without jurisdiction and is to no legal effect.
(b) To declare impugned order, dated 10-8-1999 passed by respondent No,2 dismissing application of petitioner under section 5 of Limitation Act. Family Appeal No,12 of 1999 and also the aforesaid appeal was held as time-barred may also be declared illegal without jurisdiction and is to no legal effect.
(c) To grant any other relief/reliefs to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. ' Heard Mr. Gul Zaman Khan, learned counsel for petitioner and M/s. Chatidhry Iftikhar Ahmed and Raja Ali Asghar, learned counsel for the respondents who are present on pre-admission notice.
3. ' Mr. Gul Zaman Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sole point in this petition is whether the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were justified in allowing maintenance to respondent No, 3 for a period from 20-7-1989 till 24th of December, 1993 and Iddat period. He has contended that the petitioner was married to respondent No,3 on 3-2-1989 while Rukhsati took place on 20-7-1989. According to the learned counsel the respondent No,3 lived with the petitioner for one week only and thereafter she was divorced on 29-7-1989. He has further stated that although the respondent No,3 was divorced by the petitioner on 29-7-1989 but still she filed a suit for dissolution of marriage in the Court of VIIth Civil and Family Judge Karachi-East being Family Suit No,1099 of 1992. The petitioner filed written statement stating that he has divorced the respondent No,3 on 29-7-1989 and the suit was decreed on admission. Thereafter, the respondent No,3 filed suit for maintenance being Family Suit No,1101 of 1992. On behalf of respondent No,3 her statement was recorded and in cross-examination she denied to have received divorce deed on 29-7-1989. On behalf of petitioner the evidence of the petitioner only was recorded and the petitioner produced photo copy of the divorce deed stating that the original Divorce Deed was handed over to the respondent No,3 and lying with her. No other witness was examined by any of the parties. The petitioner stated in his statement that the respondent No,7 was divorced on 29-7-1989. In cross-examination it was suggested that no divorce deed was handed over to the respondent No,3 which was denied.
4. ' In the above circumstances Mr. Gul Zaman Khan has submitted that the learned lower Courts have acted illegally and in excess of jurisdiction by granting maintenance for the period from 20th July, 1989 to 24-12-1993. Mr. Gul Zaman Khan has contended that the respondent No,3 is entitled for maintenance for a period of one week i,e, between 20-7-1989 and 29-7-1989 which is the period of subsistence of marriage and for Iddat period only.
5. ' Mr. Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No,3 contended that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of establishing handing over of Divorce Deed on 29-7- 1989 to the respondent No,3 as no witness has been examined in support of the contention. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 has pointed out that the petitioner stated in cross- examination that the divorce deed was witnessed by one Shahzad but the alleged attesting witness was not produced in Court. Mr. Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmed has further submitted that no other witness was produced to establish the delivery of divorce deed to the respondent No,3. He has, therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly allowed the maintenance during the period of subsistence of marriage and for Ibadat period.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties and have perused the material available on record. I am of the considered opinion that moot point is whether the petitioner was able to establish the factum of delivery of the divorce deed to the respondent No,3. I am further of the firm opinion that the burden of proof in this regard lay heavily on the petitioner. As discussed above the petitioner failed to examine witness in support of contention and thus failed to discharge onus. In these circumstances the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were fully justified in declining to accept the plea of divorce to the respondent No,3 on 29-7-1989. Consequent to failure on the part of petitioner in establishing the delivery of divorce deed to the respondent No,3 on 29-7-1989 the Trial Court was fully justified in granting the maintenance for the period from 20-7-1989 to 24-12-1993 and the First Appellate Court has rightly upheld the finding. Mr. Gul Zaman Khan has failed to establish any jurisdictional error, illegality, impropriety or excess of jurisdiction. It is, therefore, held that , the petition is not maintainable which stands dismissed in limine.