Petitioner has assailed the order of respondent No,1 D.C/Collector, Narowal dated 21-2-2001 whereby he had dismissed the revision petition of the present petitioner against the order of the respondent No,2 Administrator/Chairman Union Council Kotli Sudhan Monzoorpura Plot, Tehsil Shakargarh, Dis.trict Narowal dated 15-8-2000, whereby, he awarded maintenance to respondent No,3 Irshad Bibi former wife of the petitioner in the total amount of Rs,36,000 which according to the decision of the Arbitration Council was arrears of maintenance, for the total period of, 18 months and included the maintenance of two minor children of respondent No,3 for that period.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of respondent No,2 was passed without hearing the petitioner and therefore, it is against the principle of natural justice. and respondent No,3 in his order has not taken into account the means of the petitioner who .is an agriculturist and cultivates 18 acres of land which is owned by his father who has six other sons and three daughters. Further-more, petitioner has re-married and has also one child from the second wife and he has also to pay their maintenance therefore, the payment of Rs,2,000 per month is unrealistic amount as compared to the means of the petitioner. Further argued that respondent No,3 has , filed a suit for recovery of maintenance for her minor children before learned Judges Family Court which is pending adjudication and in that suit she has claimed amount of Rs,500 per month per child which also shows that the means of the petitioner are not much.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No,3 has argued that petitioner had been served notice by the Arbitration Council and if he chose not to appear, respondent No,3 cannot be penalised for the same and there are concurrent findings of fact of both the Courts below in favour of respondent No,3 which cannot be disturbed in Constitutional jurisdiction and that Rs,2000 per month as maintenance for 3 persons is not much.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their assistance. In the order of respondent No,2 it has been observed that the petitioner had been served notices on two occasions which have been received by him, but he has failed to appear despite notice and the Arbitration Council was constituted with the representative of respondent No,3 and respondent No,2 was constrained to pass the order in absence of the petitioner on account of his willful failure to appear before the Council, respondent No,1 in the impugned order dated 21-2-2001 has observed that the maintenance amount Rs,2,000 per month is not exorbitant particularly when the daughter of the petitioner and respondent No,3 has been under treatment in Gulab Devi Hospital, while there is younger son of petitioner who is also to be maintained by the mother and even though efforts have been made by the uncle of respondent No,3 to effect compromise with the petitioner. he did not agree with the same.
5. If the petitioner had any grievance that he had not been heard by the Arbitration Council, it was cured by the fact that he was heard by Revisional Court and there are concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner is in a position to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month for the period of 18 months. Since the marriage was dissolved ' on 7-4-2000, he has no further liability towards the. respondent No,3 and has only liability regarding to suit which is pending adjudication before learned Judge Family Court, Shakargarh.
6. In view of the above discussion, amount of Rs,36,000 arrears of maintenance which has been decreed" in favour of respondent No,3 is not an exorbitant amount and there is nothing illegal in orders of both the Courts below which merits interference in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is accordingly dismissed.