10. This be considered as admitted case.
11. #TBE
12. Precise facts in this writ petition are that contention of petitioner notice of divorce was given on was received by the office on 12-9-2001, it was no although the notice of divorce was not withdrawn b Chairman Arbitration Council directed the petitioner through the Embassy duly witnessed by two witnesses t the petitioner was constrained to send the divorce on special power of attorney duly attested by the Embassy.
13.
14. #TBS
15. At the petitioner of maintenance ecreed in her to challenge the vorce was given man Arbitration t quite rather he il.
16. #TBE
17. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted t has filed this writ petition malafidely as suit for recover allowance has been filed by respondent and stands favour. That the petitioner is estopped by his conduct instant certificate of effectiveness. He has alleged that d on 23-6-2001 and it was not made effective by Chai Council then he could not challenge the same but he ke complied with the orders of Chairman Arbitration Coun 4.
5. #TBS
6. And perused the azim, which is tting that he is itnesses and he the divorce on orce-decd. The rce-deed, dated itration Council attested by the effectiveness of an, Arbitration use to obey his
7. Passed by the dated 5-4-2003 earlier alleged mits, was not
8. Divorce, dated ed against him re the learned s is liable to be tenance decree
9. #TBE
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties record. The divorce-deed is available on the record of dated 5-4-2003 and in this divorce-deed he is subm divorcing the respondent on 5-4- 2003 in presence of the has no relationship with her. However, he has se 23-6-2001, the proceedings were conducted on this di petitioner has never challenged the proceedings on div 30- 6-2001, rather he obeyed the order of Chairman Ar and sent the divorce-deed through special attorney dul Embassy in Kuwait and he has obtained the certificate of divorce. If he was aggrieved by any action of the Chair Council earlier he could have challenged the same or re directions but he has duly complied with the directio Chairman Arbitration Council, issued notice of divorce, and did not challenge the omission on any action on th divorce, dated 30-6-2001, rather the respondent su received by her. In this way he is estopped by his condu 11.
12. The omission on action taken on the allege 30-6-2001 at the time when maintenance decree is pas and appeal against the same is pending adjudication bef appellate Court, this writ petition also suffers from lach dismissed on this score as it is afterthought after the mat is passed by the competent Court. Instant writ petition being without IA substance is dismissed. {{PAGE CUT}}