' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that respondent No,1 filed an application for maintenance before respondent No,2 with the prayer to grant maintenance for the period of Iddat amounting to Rs,8,000 per month. Respondent No,2 granted maintenance to respondent No,1 amounting to Rs,5,000 per month for the period of six months vide order dated 1-6- 1998. Respondent No,1 filed another application before respondent No,2 after the decision of her first application with the prayer for grant of maintenance w,e,f, 1-12-1994 to 10-3-1998. Respondent No,2 accepted the second application vide order dated 14-2-1999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed two revision petitions before D.C. Who accepted the revision petitions by joint order on 29-5-1999 and remanded the case to respondent No,2. Respondent No,2 accepted the second application of respondent No,1 vide order dated 30-8-1999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before respondent No,3 who dismissed the same vide order dated 16-12-1999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No,24421 of 1999 challenging the vires of the aforesaid order of respondent No,3, dated 16-12-1999. The writ petition was accepted vide judgment, dated 6-6-2002 and the case was remanded to the Collector who was directed to decide the case afresh after providing proper hearing to the parties without influenced by the observations of this Court.
Respondent No,3 after remand decided the case against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 16-8-2000. Hence the present writ petition. The petitioner also filed Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 2000 alongwith this writ petition with the prayer that operation of the impugned order be stayed. The operation of the impugned order was not stayed and notice was sent to the respondent No,1 and application was ordered to be heard along with the main writ petition vide order dated 28-9-2000.
Order dated 13-11-2000 reveals that amount had already been recovered by the respondent from the petitioner on 30-9-2000.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No,3 has passed the impugned order without applying his independent mind. He further submits that impugned order is result of non- reading and misreading of the reoord. He further submits that respondents Nos.2 and 3 have no jurisdiction under the law to take the cognizance of the matter by virtue of section 1(2) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 as the petitioner is not a citizen of Pakistan and the petitioner has secured British nationality. Although Nikah was solemnized in Pakistan but the petitioner has secured British Passport but this fact was not considered by both the Tribunals below. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-
(1) Sabohi Sarfraz's case 1994 MLD 1115; (2) Masood Ahmad Malik's case 1991 SCMR 681.
' He further submits that both the Tribunals below were erred in law to grant maintenance of Iddat period of 90 days which is against the Injunctions of Islam. In support of his contention he relied upon Allah Dad v. Mukhtar 1992 SCMR 1273.
3. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 13-11-2000 and notice was received by respondent No, l's brother as is evident from the report of process-server dated 18-7- 2002 which was duly certified by Nazir of the Presiding Officer. Despite notice respondent No,1 did not enter appearance. Therefore, ex parte order is passed against respondent No, 1.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the, contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record myself.
5. The petitioner did not attach copy of revision petition filed by him before respondent No,3 and also did not attach the evidence of the parties along with the writ petition. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No,24421 of 1999 which was finally decided by this Court vide judgment dated 6-6-2000. The aforesaid writ petition was requisitioned from the office. The grounds of the revision petition are attached with the said writ petition. The petitioner did not raise point of jurisdiction in the contents of the revision petition. Therefore, he is not permitted to argue the same before this Court. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:--
(1) John E. Brown Lee v. Vivan Mac Milian AIR 1940 PC 219,
(2) Ashfaq Rehman Khan v. Ch. Muhammad Afzal PLD 1971 SC' 766 .
It is also settled principle of law that writ petition is not maintainable against the concurrent finding of facts arrived by the Tribunals below. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the case' of Khuda Bakhsh 1974 SCMR 279. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no , jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Tribunals below as per principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:--
(1) M. Musaddaq's case PLD 1973 Lah. 600; (2) Qaisar Saif Ullah's case PLD 1994 SC 859.
The judgments of both the Tribunals below to the extent of Iddat period are not in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Allah Dad's case (supra) (1992 SCMR 1273). D Therefore, judgments of both the Tribunals below are modified to the extent that instead of granting maintenance of Iddat period consisting of 90 days the same is reduced to 39 days as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.
' In view of what has been discussed above the writ petition is partly accepted to the extent of granting maintenance of period of Iddat which is reduced from 90 days to 39 days. However, remaining part of the impugned orders/judgments is upheld. Disposed of in the above terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.