' NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.---Ms. Shahida' Mashkoor Memon, learned counsel files her Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No,2, which is taken on record.
2. The learned counsels for the parties have shown urgency in the matter, therefore, they are allowed to argue for disposal of this petition.
3. The case in brief is that the respondent No,2/plaintiff Mst. Fozia Sanam filed a suit before Family Judge, Shikarpur, for recovery of dower, dowery articles; maintenance and custody of the minor.
The defendant/petitioner Waheed Ahmed filed application under Rule 6 of the Family Court Rules, 1965, for return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Judge, Shikarpur, dismissed such application of defendant/petitioner vide order dated 10-4-2012, the last part of which is as under:-- "The learned -counsel for the defendant has filed application under Rule 6 of the Family Court Rules, 1965, which specifically provides that in the suits for dissolution of marriage or dower, the Court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resides shall also have jurisdiction. Keeping in view the principle settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Khalid (supra), I am of the humble view that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff, as being beneficial enactment, it provides special forum to women for adjudication of matters provided under the schedule attached with the Family Courts Act, 1964, and rules framed thereunder and further bars the multiple litigation between the parties and provides joinder of causes in one case as specifically provided under section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1964. For the reasons discussed above, the application for the return of plaint is hereby, dismissed with no order as to cost. The applicant/defendant. Is further required to proceed with the case in accordance with the law."
4. The petitioner filed family appeal against the said order and the same was disposed of vide order dated 27-4-2012, passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Shikarpur, holding that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the appeal and that the appellant/petitioner is at liberty to file constitutional petition before High Court for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, this petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the said orders.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No, 2, and also perused the relevant record.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Rule 6 of the Family. Court Rules, 1965, submits that under the provisions of such rule the respondent No, 2 could file the suit in Family Court of Sukkur and the Family Court, Shikarpur, has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit as both the parties lastly resided , at Sukkur, where the minor also lived together with the parents and that no cause of action has arisen within the limits of District Shikarpur. On the other hand: learned counsel for respondent No, 2 has placed her reliance on the case of Major Muhammad Khalid Karim v. Mst.
Sadia Ayoub and others, reported as PLD 2012 SC 66, and contends that under such authority the Family Court of Shikarpur is very much competent having jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent No, 2.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant case-law. The proviso to Rule 6 of the Family Court Rules, 1965, provides that a suit for dissolution of marriage or dower could be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the wife ordinarily resides. It is an admitted position that the respondent No,2 is permanently living in District Shikarpur. Accordingly, the suit filed by the respondent No,2 for dower in the Family Court of Shikarpur was maintainable thereunder the said proviso. The Family Court has also exclusive jurisdiction under section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, to adjudicate all matters, which are falling within the 1st Schedule to the Family. Courts Act, 1964. Accordingly, the suit filed by the respondent No,2 for dower as well as for dowery articles, maintenance and the custody of child, was within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Shikarpur. This position of the law seems to be clear from latest authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent No,2.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order being proper and legal calls for no interference of this court and therefore, this petition deserves no merits, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to the cost.