' KHAWAJA IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.---Through the present petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the order passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi dated 20-1-2012 has been challenged.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No.2 herein namely Bakhtan Mai filed a suit for recovery of maintenance against the petitioner. She mentioned her address to be resident of District Layyah but showed her present address to be resident of Kamal Abad, Street No.10, Mohallah Ghrotti, Shadman Town, Dar-us-Salam, Rawalpindi. In para-10 of the plaint it was mentioned that the plaintiff was living at Rawalpindi on the above-mentioned address hence the said court had the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the matter. In the written reply the preliminary objection was raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that plaintiff's permanent residence was in Tehsil and District Layyah and the suit was for maintenance and not a dower and for dissolution of marriage, hence the Family Court where she is ordinarily residing had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter and the plaint be returned. Preliminary arguments were heard on this aspect and vide impugned order dated 10-1- 2012 the learned Trial Court relying upon a case-law captioned "Mst.Saadia Yaqoob v. M. Khalid Karim and others" (2011 CLC 146) observed that 'the plaintiff can file a suit for maintenance where she resides and so the said court had the jurisdiction. This order has been impugned in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 only the suit for dissolution of marriage or dower can be filed within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resides and so the suit for maintenance cannot be instituted within the local limits of the court in which the wife ordinarily resides. He contended that the case law relied upon by the learned Trial Court had distinguishable facts since in the said case it was the question of guardianship and not the suit for maintenance and even otherwise in the said suit the petitioner was residing with her parents.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. In order to resolve the controversy it is appropriate to reproduce Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965 which reads as under:-- "(6) The Court which shall have jurisdiction to try a suit will be that within the local limits of which:
(a) the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen, or
(b) where the parties reside or last resided together: Provided that in suits for dissolution of marriage or dower, the Court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resides shall also have jurisdiction."
6. It is also pertinent to mention here the second proviso of subsection (2) of section 7 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which was amended vide Ordinance No. LV of 2002 by incorporation of following proviso:-- "Provided that a plaint for dissolution of marriage may contain all claims relating to dowry, maintenance, dower, personal property and belongings of wife, custody of children and visitation rights of parents to meet their children."
' The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court captioned .Muhammad Iqbal through special attorney Faiz Sultan v. Parveen Iqbal" (PLD 2005 SC 22) shows that enlarge right conferred on wife by the second provision to section 7(ii) of the Act has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to mean that the place of her residence creates the jurisdiction in the competent court for the type of claims mentioned therein that a wife may file. If procedural technicality is allowed to rule the choice of forum in such a matter then benefit conferred upon a wife or a mother by the aforesaid second proviso may be easily lost. Therefore, the statutory intent of second proviso to section 7 ibid and the observations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Iqbal case supports the conclusion that the Family Court where the plaintiff is residing had the jurisdiction to entertain the maintenance suit. In fact same principle was laid down in the case relied upon by the learned Trial Court as 2011 CLC 146.
7. In view of what has been said above, this petition has no force and the same stands dismissed in limine.