The petitioner, Shabbir Hussain, has assailed the judgment of respondent No. 1, D.C./Collector, Narowal dated 1-3-2000, whereby he had dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner against the order of respondent No.2, Chairman, Union Council Aada, Shakargarh dated 4-2-1993.
Respondent No.2 had directed the petitioner to pay Rs.84,000 as maintenance allowance to respondent No.3, Razia Bibi as well as her daughter Jameela Bibi, being the total amount of maintenance computed 0 Rs.1,000 per month for a period of 7 years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no notice was ever served on the petitioner by respondent No.2 and the order of respondent No.2 was passed ex --parte, therefore, the petitioner has been condemned unheard which is against the principles of natural justice, that the petitioner had divorced respondent No.3 in 1992 and, therefore, he was only liable to pay maintenance to her for 'Iddat' period which comes to Rs.3,000 and the said amount has already been deposited by the petitioner: that regarding the maintenance of the minor respondent No.3 had separately filed a suit for maintenance which had been decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Shakargarh which had also been confirmed by the High Court and, therefore, the petitioner could not be held liable twice for payment of maintenance to Jameela Bibi; that respondent ignored the contention of the petitioner that he had never received any notice of the proceedings and had also not consideration that award of maintenance for a period of 7 years is illegal and that no execution proceedings were conducted on the order of respondent No.2 for more than 7 years and, therefore, even the execution proceedings were time-barred. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments cited as Ahmad Riaz v. Mst. Qaisera Minhas and others 1994 CLC 2403 and Balqees Akhtar v. Iqbal Bosan and others 1995 CLC 914 in which it "has been held that maintenance cannot be allowed for a period exceeding six years.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No-3 has argued that provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to the proceedings before the Chairman, Arbitration Council and, therefore, if a notice was not received by the petitioner, the Chairman could have proceeded ex parte and under section 9 the Chairman, Arbitration Council can award maintenance to the were alongwith her children; that respondent No.3 was divorced by the petitioner on 4-2-1993 and certificate was issued by the Arbitration Council but subsequently the parties reconciled and respondent No.3 filed a suit for herself and the minor Jameela Bibi on 19-6-1998 which was decided on 5-8-2000 and it was held by the learned Family Court in the judgment that Talaq between the parties had become effective on 18-10-1995. The Family Court had only awarded maintenance to respondent No.3 for three months' Iddat period while awarding maintenance to respondent No.4 Jameela Bibi in the amount of Rs.500 per month during the pendency of the suit and Rs.800 thereafter till her entitlement under the law; that the maintenance awarded by respondent No.2 pertains to the period 4-2-1986 to 4-2-1993 while maintenance claimed and awarded by the Family Court pertains to the period after 19-6-1998, therefore, the petitioner has not been subjected to double liability since the periods awarded , by the Arbitration Council and the Family Court are mutually exclusive; that the execution proceedings were filed within time i.e. On 14-7-1997 which was within six years of the award of maintenance by respondent Not.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also examined the documents appended with the petition. Respondent No.3 had approached respondent No.2 with application for maintenance on 9-1-1993. Two notices were sent to the petitioner by respondent No.2 which were returned undelivered and respondent No. 2 has observed in the order sheet that neither of the notices was received by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and after recording the evidence of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.84,000 as past maintenance for seven years to respondents Nos.3 and 4. Respondent No.3 filed the execution petition on 13-7-1998 i.e. 6-1/2 years after the order of respondent No.2 while the period of limitation is clearly six years if first application for execution has been filed within three years, therefore, the execution proceedings were patently time-- barred. The petitioner filed a revision petition when he received notice of the execution proceedings and respondent No. 1 without taking into consideration the contentions of the petitioner that he had been condemned unheard proceeded to dismiss his revision petition as being time-barred as well as dismissing the review petition on merits. The order of respondent No.2 has been passea without taking into fact three legal lacunae: Firstly, that respondent No.2 had not effected service on the petitioner as required by the rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance which prescribed that if the notices are returned unserved then citation should be published in some daily of the area where the respondent resides; secondly, the Chairman while passing the order of maintenance awarded maintenance for 7 years to the petitioner while under Article 120 of the Limitation Act maximum period for which the maintenance can be awarded is 6 years and thirdly, the application of respondent No.3 for execution of the decree or respondent No.2 was filed after 6-1/2 years. Therefore, it was even otherwise being time-- barred.
5. In view of the above discussion, this petition is accepted and the order of respondent No. 1 dated 1-3-2000, is declared to be without lawful authority. Similarly, the order of respondent No.2 dated 4- 2-1993, is also declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Parties are left to bear their own costs.