' The petitioner has assailed the orders of the Additional District Judge dated 27-9-1995 by virtue of which the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent Dr. Ashfaq Ahmad Khan was sought to be set aside by the present petitioner but her appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 19-10-1992 was maintained.
2. The facts in brief are that the present petitioner and respondent No.1 were married on 1-6-1972 when the respondent No.1 was residing in U.S.A. It was alleged that at later stage the petitioner secured visa for U.S.A. At the expense of respondent No.1 as his wife but upon reaching America she did not accompany him rather accompanied her brother. With this back ground the respondent No.1 divorced the petitioner on 29-114972 and the notice of Talaq was served upon the Chairman, Union Council on 5-2-1973 which became effective on 16-6-1973. It was further alleged that during the pendency of divorce proceedings Rafique Ahmad Khan father of the petitioner moved an application on 5-5-1973 for the grant of maintenance allowance to the petitioner for the period of Iddat period also which was allowed in her favour at the rate of Rs.1,000 Dollars per month. It was further submitted that the petitioner moved an application for execution of the above referred decree of maintenance passed in favour before the Senior Civil Judge which was rejected as not being within the jurisdiction on 13-5-1978. The matter was again presented before the A.D.C.(G) from where it was ordered to be enforced. With this background the respondent No.1 brought a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Lahore praying that a declaratory decree be passed in his favour to the effect that the orders passed by the Arbitration Council on 16-6-1973 were against law and void, being without jurisdiction and the orders dated 24-5-1988 through which the revision petition was dismissed by the Collector on 24-5-1988 as being illegal and the maintenance allowance be ordered not to be recovered from him. The matter was contested in between the parties. The trial Court framed the requisite issues and recorded evidence of the parties and then came to the conclusion that the suit of respondent No.1 was liable to be decreed in his favour and passed the judgment and decree accordingly on 19-10-1992. The present petitioner feeling herself dissatisfied filed an appeal before the Appellate Court from where her appeal was dismissed on 27-9-1995 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was maintained. The petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below through this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the entire record with their assistance has been perused. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 was fully aware of the proceedings before Arbitration Council and if it be assumed that he was not aware of these proceedings he contested the application for execution moved by the petitioner in the year 1978 and with this background the suit brought by him in the year 1989 was hopelessly barred by time. It was further alleged that the respondent No.1 in his cross-examination admitted about the existence of the decree in favour of the petitioner with regard to the maintenance in the year 1973.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the submissions and supported the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Apart from it, it has been submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the original application for maintenance was submitted by the father of the petitioner, as such, the entire proceedings taken on it ab initio void and liable to be ignored and no question of limitation arises.
5. After having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material made available before this Court the fact whether the original application for maintenance was submitted by the petitioner or by her father. The basic question which requires determination is whether the suit brought by the respondent No.1 before the trial Court was within time. The litigation in between the parties started in the year 1973 when the respondent No.1 divorced the petitioner and sent a copy of the notice of Talaq to the Chairman Union Council. The certificate of effectiveness of Talaq was issued on 16-6-1973. Apart from it is well-established law that when an order which may be void comes into the knowledge of the aggrieved party and is sought to be enforced against him the limitation commences to run. The respondent No.1 in his cross- examination admitted the knowledge of the above referred order of maintenance in the year 1973.
The respondent No.1 apart from this aspect of the case contested an application for execution of the said order of maintenance in the year 1978. As such it was within his knowledge and the limitation had started to run. With this background the suit brought by the respondent No.1 was hopelessly barred by time and the trial Court wrongly decided this issue in favour of the respondent No. I . Thus both the Courts below have non-read and misread the evidence on record and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below suffer from illegality and material irregularity. As such the revision petition is allowed and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and the suit of the respondent No.1 brought for declaration is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.