ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, J. --- By means of this Constitution petition, the judgment and decree dated 11.6.2007 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore and the order dated 30.5.2008 of the learned respondent No. 2, have been brought under impeachment.
2. The facts are disclosed in this Constitution petition are that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 married on 17.3.1987 in accordance with Muslim family rites and Sunnah. The spouses fundamentally are Pakistanis but as both of them were living in the United States of America, therefore, the Nikah was registered in New York. Out of the wedlock, two children namely Obaid-ur- Rehman's and Aisha Rehman's were born. Petitioner and respondent No. 1, both applied for the citizenship of U.S.A. And the same was granted to them on due course of time, there arose some irritant issue and respondent No. 1 crime to Pakistan and instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage seeking judicial divorce. It is stated that the petitioner could not be served and ex parte decree was passed on 11.6.2007, where-after an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made but the same was also dismissed on 30.5.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the ex parte judgment and decree and the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte.
Summons were sent to U.S.A. At the given address in the plaint but those were received by respondent No. 1 because she was putting up her abode in the States at the relevant time. Bitterly argued that the signatures of the petitioner on the summons are forged and he does not on the same. Further argued that under Section 14 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, respondent No. 1 cannot retain the double nationality. She has been travelling on the basis of American Passport after obtaining visa for Pakistan and the moment she acquired citizenship of the States, the citizenship of Pakistan shall remain suspended and will become operative only when she chooses to renounce the citizenship of America. It is stated that she was not competent to institute the suit in Pakistan at Lahore and not only the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Family Court but also the whole superstructure raised thereon is illegal and cannot be sustained.
Learned counsel also states that even if it is presumed that the petitioner had knowledge about pendency of the suit or the date of hearing, he being absentee and permanently putting-up his abode in U.S.A. Was prevented by sufficient reasons not to appear and defend the suit.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No 1 states that under Section 14(1) read with Section 14-A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which later-on was introduced, the petitioner can retain dual nationality and she had every right to institute the suit and get judicial divorce. On facts and merits, he adopted the same, reasons, which weighed with the learned Court' below in passing the impugned decisions.
5. I have given conscious thought , to the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that petitioner made an application in terms of sub-section (b) of Section 9 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 for setting aside the ex parte decree passed by the learned Trial Judge on 11.6.2007. In ground (vi) of this Constitution petition, the reason disclosed for non.-appearance was that he was prevented by sufficient reasons not to appear before the. Learned Court due to his preoccupation in the United States of America and his financial constraints. This direct admission made in the pleadings, in the long way goes to establish that he had the knowledge about pendency of suit and the date of hearing.From overseas when he was keeping his residence in the States, sent a request to the learned Trial Judge for getting adjournment. In the given situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge of the date of hearing or pendency of the suit. On account of conscious inactivity on his part, he allowed the ex parte decree to be passed against him. Therefore, no sufficient , reasons were disclosed for setting aside ex parte decree and the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Lahore is based on sound judicial consideration.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of Section 14 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, respondent No. 1 had not renounced the citizenship obtained from U.S.A., therefore, she being a foreign was not competent to maintain the suit at Lahore. Section 14(1) ibid was introduced at a time when the position was entirely different and it was for that reason, period of one year was given initially to renounce the citizenship of either country. In due course of time, Section 14-A was later-on introduced and added to the Statute which in terms provides that if any citizen of Pakistan residing outside Pakistan, who is not a minor and is also a citizen or national of another country, or has been given by the competent authority of another country any valid document assuring him of the grant of the citizenship or nationality of that other country upon renouncing his citizenship . Of Pakistan, makes in the prescribed manner, a declaration renouncing his citizenship of Pakistan, the declaration shall be registered by the prescribed authority; and upon such registration that person shall cease to be a citizen of Pakistan. Provided that if any such declaration is made during any war in which Pakistan may be engaged, registration thereof shall be withheld until the Federal Government otherwise directs. The position, therefore, in any event which springs out is the Section 14- A(1)(b) makes it imperative that the declaration of renouncing citizenship of Pakistan shall be registered by the prescribed manner and until there is such declaration, respondent No. 1 could never be treated to have renounced the citizenship of Pakistan. No such declaration either is tendered in evidence dr shown to this Court during the course of arguments.
8., Vide Notification No. 11/42/51/Poll.(1), dated 6.2.1952, the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 23 :of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, framed the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called the Rules) Rule 19-A of the said Rules makes it imperative that a declaration of renunciation of the Citizenship of Pakistan made under Section 14-A of the Act shall be in Form "X" in quadruplicate and shall state under what provision of law the applicant is a citizen of Pakistan and the other country of which the applicant is a citizen or national or the competent authority, of which has given him any valid document assuring him of the grant of citizenship or nationality of that country upon his renouncing his citizenship of Pakistan. Further provided that the declaration shall be made to the Pakistan Mission or Consulate in the country where the person concerned is residing and shall be forwarded by such. Mission or Consulate to the Director of Immigration and Passport, for registration. There is no evidence or indication in the case in hand that respondent No. 1 had renounced the citizenship of this country. A Photostat copy of the Passport of the petitioner has been shown to, me by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, which eminently shows that he is still retaining the Passport of. Pakistan. Both, the petitioner and respondent No. 1, are keeping dual nationalities and none of them has surrendered or renounced ' the citizenship of Pakistan. This question came-up for consideration in Shehbaz-ud-Din Chaudhry v.
1. S.H.O. Police Station Garden Town, Lahore,
2. The State,
3. Syed Muhammad lqtidar Haider (1999 SD 217) wherein this Court held:- -- "A careful reading of Sections 14 and 14-A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 would show that they cater to two different situations though the object may be the same. Section 14 relates to those persons who' at the commencement of the Act had double nationality, were given the option to renounce the other nationality failing which the consequence has to follow. Section 14-A on the other hand relates to a "citizen of Pakistan residing outside Pakistan" as the petitioner was and it stipulates that such a citizen can renounce Pakistan citizenship in the matter as under:- "14-A(b) has been given by the competent authority of another country any valid document assuring him of the grant of the citizenship or nationality of that other country upon renouncing his citizenship of Pakistan. makes in the prescribed manner a declaration renouncing his citizenship of Pakistan, the declaration shall be registered by the authority; and upon such registration that person shall cease to be a citizen of Pakistan."
Repugnancy cannot be attributed to the Legislature. It appears this provision was enacted for the benefit of Pakistan citizens abroad, who for variety of compulsions had to acquire another Nationality were required to file declaration in Form-X upon the date of Registration of which they could. Shed of their liabilities as Pakistani Citizen. In absence of the afore-referred declaration he would continue to shoulder liabilities of a Pakistan citizen. Even if we assume that he was a Saudi National at the time of alleged offence even then he cannot claim immunity from prosecution in Pakistan.".
Muhammad Talat Iqbal Khan through General Attorney v. Tanvir Batool through Wasim Iqbal and 2.
Others (2005 CLC 481) is also quoted with advantage. In this case the authorities received notice of divorce from the husband but having come to know that the were was British national and the husband had acquired nationality of Zimbabwe, declined to proceed any further-in the rnatter. It was held that by mere getting citizenship of two other countries by the spouses, the citizenship of Pakistan shall never deem to have been relinquished. All provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance: 1961 were applicable to the parties and in consequence the order passed by the authority was set aside and the case was remanded to them for proceeding on the notice of divorce. Learned counsel for.The petitioner has relied on Mst. Sabohi Sarfraz v. Chairman, :Arbitration Council (1994 M LD 1115) and Rehmat Ullah v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and another (1997 CLC 16) to contend that the case. At Lahore was not' 'competent. I am of the considered view that both the parties are keeping double nationality and until there is such declaration of renunciation of citizenship of Pakistan in the prescribed manner, the suit for dissolution referred to above, the facts and circumstances are entirely different which are not applicable to the case in hand.
9. As regard the objection of maintainability of suit at Lahore, suffice it-to say that the words "ordinarily resident" occurring in the West Pakistan Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 give liberal interpretation. Respondent No. 1 fundamentally is a citizen of this country and at the time she instituted the suit, she Was keeping her ordinary residence and abode in Lahore, therefore, the Family Court at Lahore has jurisdiction in the matter.
10. During the course of proceedings, I tried my level best that the matter should be compromised but both' the parties remained adamant. The parties were asked to sit in the Chamber of Mian Abdul Quddous, Advocate .Alongwith Mr. Muhammad Asif Bhatti, Advocate representing the cause of the petitioner but all attempts failed. When the case came up for hearing today, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 stated which fact was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had levelled serious allegations against respondent No. 1 and it created such situation that reunion was not possible. Respondent No. 1 refused to live in the house of the petitioner at any cost. All efforts made by this Court for compromise remained ineffective. I believe that the spouses have developed acrimonious feelings against each Other and there arose the possibility for settlement of the issue amicably. The main question is that when the heart is broken, it is immaterial that the bones are intact. The spouses, I believe, cannot live within the limits ordained by the God Almighty.
11. For whatever has been stated above, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
However, the parties are left to bear their on costs. .