Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 2338 of 1986, decided on 21st October, 1986.

---S.9--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Maintenance fixed by competent Court, a finding of fact not interferable in constitutional jurisdiction--Petitioner married and divorced a woman, held, was liable to pay her maintenance for period she was entitled to under law- Interference declined in constitutional jurisdiction.

Zafar Iqbal Bajwa for Petitioner.

Yousaf Kazmi for Respondent No.l.

The petitioner married the respondent No.l on 19-12-1981. According to him he sent a notice of divorce to her on 21-2-1982. It is stated that it was wrongly recorded by the Chairman, Arbitration Council that the notice had been withdrawn. In any case, the petitioner served another notice of divorce on 19-6-1982. While this matter was pending, the respondent filed an application for maintenance. The petitioner filed a transfer application in both the cases which were pending before Mr. Muhammad Yasin Pehlwan, Councillor, Halqa No. 81/Chairman, Arbitration Council, Mohni Road, Lahore. The application was allowed and cases were transferred to Mr. Tariq Sana Bajwa, Councillor, Ravi Road, Lahore with the powers of Chairman, Arbitration Council, vide order dated 11-10-1983. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent No.l again filed an application for maintenance before Mr. Muhammad Yasin Pehlwan, Councillor Halqa No. 81, Chairman of the Arbitration Council, Mohni Road, Lahore from whose Court the petitioner had earlier got the cases transferred. The Chairman allowed the respondent No.1 the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month from 19-12-1981 to 19-10-1983 and for further at the same rate. This is vide order dated 30-10-1983. The petitioner filed a revision petition and the order of the Chairman was set aside. The case was remanded for fresh decision to Haji Maqsood Butt, Councillor, Halqa No. 99 with the powers of Chairman, Arbitration Council, Tehsil Bazar, Lahore. This is vide order dated 18-4-1984. The latter allowed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month for the period from 18-12-1981 to 28-5-1983 holding that the divorce had become effective on 28-2-1983. This is vide order dated 27-11-1984. The petitioner filed a revision petition and the learned Collector, Lahore District Lahore vide. his order dated 11-3-1986 has reduced the rate of maintenance from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 800 per month and maintained the order regarding the period of maintenance fixed by the Chairman, Arbitration Council Hence, this Constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the rate of maintenance allowed to the respondent wife of Rs.800 per month is too excessive as the salary of the petitioner is Rs.690' per month. He has to maintain his father and unmarried sisters.

3. On query it transpired that there is a child from the wedlock. In order to see if any compromise would be arrived at between the parties, they were sent for. The petitioner having divorced the respondent wife, has taken a second wife and is not willing for reconciliation. From the statement of facts made above, it would appear that the petitioner married the respondent No.l on 19-12-1981 and according to him he issued a notice of divorce on 21-2-1982 i.e. just within two months he lost the fancy and divorced the woman. The maintenance has been fixed by a competent Court. It is a finding of fact hardly interferable. The contention of 'the learned counsel for the petitioner that the salary of the petitioner is not enough, would only mean that he must work hard to discharge his liabilities. If he marries and divorces a woman, at-least he should pay her the maintenance for the period she is entitled under the law. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs.

M. Y: H./M-217/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.