Jurisdiction of Family Court

 

Territorial Jurisdiction of                    Family Court

        (Where wife ordinarily resides)

Section 6 of family court rules 1965, 

Ss. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 of CPC,1908.

Within the local limits of which the wife ordinary resides… family court alone had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all the matrimonial disputes, whataver their nature, irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, provided that the famiy court where the wife resides shall have the jurisdiction to entertain such suits/claims… 

Provisions of section16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 CPC stood excluded from the proceedings before the family court, thus the question of its territorial jurisdiction would never arise, provided that the family court where the wife resides shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all such matter.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

2019  CLC  1436       KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

   S. 7---Family Courts     Rules, 1965, R. 6---Suit for maintenance---Territorial jurisdiction---Petitioner     assailed judgment and decree passed by Trial Court on the ground of having     no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit---Contention of petitioner was that wife used to reside at place G and she never ordinarily     resided at place K and that as per R. 6 of Family Courts Rules, 1965, the wife could not file a suit for maintenance from the place of her ordinary     residence---Validity---Petitioner himself had approached the Family Court     at place G with a plaint but the said court directed him to approach the     Court having jurisdiction at place K---Petitioner having not challenged     said verdict before any forum, could not be allowed to reopen an already     settled matter, under S. 7 of Family Courts Act, 1964, a plaint for     dissolution of marriage could contain all claims including maintenance,     meaning thereby, that if a wife filed suit for dissolution of marriage from     the place of her ordinary residence, she could combine the prayer of Maintenance     along with other prayers---If     contention of petitioner was admitted that R. 6 of Family Courts Rules,     1965 did not allow the wife to file a suit for maintenance from the place     of ordinary residence, then it would be a contradictory view as to a     clear-cut provision provided under first proviso of S. 7, Family Courts     Act, 1964---Rule 6 was a beneficial rule framed with intention to provide     convenience to a wife, separated from her husband, as such, the relief     given to a wife under said Rule could not be stretched in favour of husband     by forcing her to file a suit for maintenance at his place of     residence---Suit for maintenance was competently filed---Constitutional     petition was dismissed.

Zzzzzzzzzz

Faimly suit can't be dismissed on point territorial jurisdiction...........

   Dismissal of suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction-Words “ordinarily resides”, as used in R.6, West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965-Connotation-Proviso to R.6, West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, enables estranged wife to file suit for dissolution of marriage within local limits of which she ordinarily resides-Petitioner’s husband and parents were resident of different place while she was residing at another place earning her own livelihood, thus, ordinarily residing at a place different from where her parents and husband resided-Words “ such place of her choice would answer to the concept “ordinarily resides “-Petitioner ordinarily residing at a place of her choice, after separation from her husband, was, thus, competent to bring suit for dissolution of marriage in the Court of that place--High Court ordinarily would not go into question of fact in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction but where findings of Courts below on the face of record appeared to be perverse or based on no evidence (as in petitioner’s case) High Court even in Constitutional jurisdiction could take different view-Both Courts below having unlawfully refused to exercise their jurisdiction on wrong assumption that they did not have such jurisdiction, their judgments were set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court 

for decision on merits within specified period.

1997 CLC7 42 

Ref.

PLD 1988 Kar. 602

PLD 1976 Kar. 978

 PLD 1979 SC 864

Zzzzzzzu

Suit for dissolution of marriage can be filled without residence certificate. 

R. 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Territorial jurisdiction of Family Court---Place of residence of wife---Suit filed by wife for dissolution of marriage was returned to wife on the ground that she had failed to produce any document showing her residence at the place where she filed the suit--Validity---Suit for dissolution of marriage or dower, under R.6 of West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, could be filed within local limit where wife ordinarily resided---High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction set aside the orders passed by both the Courts below and case was remanded to Family Court to proceed in accordance with law---Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2010  CLC  403  Kar

Zzzzzzzzzzz

 2012  CLC  24     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Ss. 1(2), 5, Sched. & S.10(4)---West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, R.6---Civil procedure Code (V of 1908), S.83---Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951), S.14(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.1(2) & 199---Constitutional petition---Suit for Dissolution of marriage on ground of Khula and recovery of maintenance---Husband's application seeking dismissal of suit by Family Court in Pakistan for lacking jurisdiction to try, same as parties were citizens of State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir---Dismissal of such application and passing of decree for Dissolution of marriage by Family Court for failure of pre-trial conciliation efforts---Validity---According to S.14(b) of Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, a permanent resident of State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir having migrated to Pakistan would be regarded as citizen of Pakistan---Subjects of the State holding Pakistani passports would be deemed to be citizens of Pakistan---

Section 83, C.P.C. provided that an alien, if not falling within definition of an "alien" enemy, could sue in Pakistan---Under S.1(2) of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, residence of one party would give jurisdiction to Family Court in Pakistan to entertain such suit even though marriage not solemnized in Pakistan---Suit for Dissolution of marriage according to R.6 of West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 could be filed in Family Court within whose local limits wife was ordinarily residing, while suit for recovery of maintenance could be filed in Family Court within whose local limits cause of action had arisen wholly or in part---Record showed that wife and her children residing since long in Pakistan were registered citizens of Pakistan holding national identity cards---Cause of action as stated by wife had arisen to her in Pakistan---Wife and her children could invoke and avail jurisdiction of Courts in Pakistan including Family Courts---High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances