' Mst. Farida Khanum petitioner is aggrieved against the order of Collector Okara dated 3-1-1994 whereby he set aside the order of Chairman Arbitration Council dated 8-8-1993 and remanded the case to him for its decision afresh.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Tariq Javed respondent No.2 and petitioner were married on 20-10-1989 in accordance with Muslim rites. One son Farhan Tariq was born out of this wedlock.
Parties lived happily for some time but subsequently relations between them became strained. She was expelled from the house by respondent No.2 whereafter she took shelter in the house of her parents. Petitioner filed an application before Chairman Arbitration Council on 31-1993 for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000 ner month with effect from October, 1990. This application was withdrawn by her on 24-2-1993. Again she filed an application for the grant of maintenance on 11- 5-1993 claiming past maintenance of two years and four months and future at the same rate of Rs.1,000 per month. The Chairman Arbitration Council accepted her application vide order dated 8- 8-1993 and granted her maintenance for 33 months at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month with effect from October, 1990 to 18-7-1993, the date on which the divorce became effective. This order was challenged by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 on the ground that petitioner has been living with him till 23-11-1992 therefore, she was not entitled to the maintenance allowance for this period. He produced documentary evidence to establish that she has been living with him till 23-11- 1992 which includes a certificate dated 19-11-1993 issued by the Pakistan Railway indicating that on 30-10-1991 she travelled with her husband from Okara to Lahore and back. Again on 21-11-1993 from Okara to Multan Cantt., and back. She also travelled with her husband on 9-5-1992 from Okara to Muzaffargarh and back. On the basis of aforesaid certificate and other documents attached with the revision the Deputy Commissioner, Okara set aside the order dated 8-8-1993 and remanded the case to the Chairman Arbitration Council against which the present petition has been instituted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that she does not press her claim for maintenance prior to 23-11-1992 as according to the documents placed on record she has been living with her husband. However, regarding remaining period he submits that she is entitled to the maintenance of about eight months at the rate of Rs.1000 per month from 24-11-1992 till 18-7-1993 the date when the divorce became effective. He also submits that further litigation will add to the agonies of the parties, therefore, he confines his claim to the aforesaid undisputed period only.
4. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned order and submits that since she was not willing to live with respondent No.2, she is not entitled to the maintenance. The order of remand normally is not interfered with under the Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. Learned A.A.-G. States that respondent No.1 is a pro forma respondent. The contesting parties have argued their case, therefore, he has nothing to say.
6. Heard. Record perused. Admittedly petitioner was wife of respondent No.2. According to the record and the statement of respondent No.2 she has been living with him upto 23-11-1992. Her desertion period starts from 24-11-1992 and the Talaq became effective on 13-7-1993. She is entitled to the maintenance allowance for the period from 24-11-1992 till 18-7-1993. This period of 8 months is not disputed by the parties. The remand of case will not be in the interest of justice and will in fact cause further unnecessary harassm ent to the parties. The record clearly supports the contention of the petitioner that she was forced to live in the house of her parents after desertion by respondent No.2 who had not made any effort to rehabilitate her through any Court proceeding by filing a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. She is entitled to the maintenance allowance from her husband for the period specified above. The quantum of maintenance has not been seriously challenged in the revision nor before the Chairman Arbitration Council. Respondent No.2 was an employee in the Railway Department and payment of Rs.1000 per month to the petitioner is neither excessive nor exorbitant.
7. So far as the contention of respondent No.2 that remand order normally is not interfered is concerned, suffice it to observe that husband is bound to maintain his wife. Admittedly petitioner has not been paid maintenance for aforesaid eight months by respondent No.2, therefore, in order to avoid further litigation and unnecessary expense for petty amount of Rs.8,000, I consider it a fit case in the interest of justice to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to pay maintenance allowance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1000 per month for eight months with effect from 24-11-1992 till 18-7-1993. This petition is allowed and disposed of in the terms indicated above. No order as to costs.