Law: Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Section: 9

Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961).- ----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Maintenance---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Concurrent findings of fact recorded by competent Authorities below regarding quantum of maintenance, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Petitioner husband was held liable to provide maintenance to respondent wife up to date when divorce became effective including the Iddat period of three months. M. Zakriyya Khan v. Aftab Ali Khan and another P L D 1985 Lah. 319; Muhammad Alamgir Hashmi v. Chairman, Union Council and others 1987 C L C 2230; Ghulam Nabi v. Farrukh Latif and 2 others 1986 S C M R 1350; Inamul Islam v. Hussain Bano and 4 others P L D 1976 Lah. 1466; Lai Din and 2 others v. Mst. Zeenat Bibi and 4 others 1987 C L C 587; Manzoor Hussain v. Chairman, Arbitration Council, Union Council Jalal, Tehsil and District Gujranwala and 4 others 1988 C L C 2061 and Mst. Nasreen Ashraf v. Muhammad Iqbal 1988 CLC914ref. Javed Aslam Qureshi for Petitioner. Qaiser Abbas Qadir for Respondent No.l. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Date of hearing: 20th February, 1991. JUDGMENT The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has challenged the orders dated 6-6-1985 and 3-5-1988 of respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively. The relevant facts are that the petitioner and respondent No.l were married in accordance with the Muslim rites on 11-2-1983. It seems that their relations became strained. The petitioner pronounced the divorce and sent notice dated 2-3-1985 to respondent No.2, who filed the same vide order dated 5-3-1985 on the pretext that the petitioner has not presented the notice himself. Thereafter the respondent No.l filed a   petition on 24-3-1985 for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.800 p.m. w.e.f. 1-6-1984. The petitioner resisted this application. The respondent vide order dated 1-6-1985 fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.800 per month from 1-6-1984 till the marriage was validly dissolved. The petitioner challenged this order through revision petition before respondent No.3, who dismissed the same vide order dated 3-5-1988. The petitioner has…