Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 26.5.2003 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No, 6853 of 2003 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment dated 1.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, was maintained.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that Respondent No, 1 Nargis Mirza had contracted marriage with petitioner on 20.10.1997 thereafter both started living as husband and wife. The petitioner, however, expelled Respondent No, 1 from his house on the pretext of having no issue, whereafter she started living with her parents in a miserable condition. Since maintenance allowance was not paid to Respondent No, 1 by the petitioner, as such, she filed suit for recovery of maintenance allowance on 4.10.2001 with the assertion that the petitioner being a citizen of England runs his own business in London and earns more than Rs, 2,00,000/- per month, as such, was within the means to maintain her. Accordingly, she claimed Rs, 20000/- as past and future maintenance. The suit was vehemently contested by the petitioner on the ground of locus standi, maintainability being nationality holder of England and also that he had divorced her on 2.7.1998 in presence of Sanaullah.
3. The suit was decreed only to the extent of Iddat period and an amount of Rs, 20000/- per month was allowed for that particular period only. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, vide judgment dated 1.3.2003 allowed the maintenance allowance to Respondent No, 1. at the rate of Rs, 5000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit. It was against this judgment, the petitioner filed the above mentioned writ petition before the learned High Court which was disposed of vide the impugned judgment.
4. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Uns, learned ASC for the petitioner mainly contended that all the courts below have mis-read and non-appreciated the evidence on record led by the petitioner.
According to him, the petitioner had in fact divorced the respondent in 1998, as such, she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance.
5. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the judgment delivered by the learned Appellate Court and are of the considered opinion that the same are based on proper appraisal of evidence and do not call for any interference. It has been candidly admitted by petitioner Manzoor Ahmad in his statement before the trial Court that he had not divorced the respondent but she was still his wife. Even if the plea of petitioner that he had pronounced Talaq to Respondent No, 1 is taking into consideration, the same is without any foundation and has not been established on record. On this aspect reference is made to Section 7 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, wherein it has been stipulated that when a husband wishes to divorce his wife in any form whatsoever, he shall have to give notice in writing of his having done so to the Chairman of the concerned area and shall supply a copy whereof to the wife. Admittedly, in his case this provision of law has not been invoked by the petitioner. Thus, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the findings recorded in impugned judgment. Moreover, no question of public importance of whatsoever nature is involved in this case.
6. Resultantly, we do not find any force in the petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.