ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance against the petitioner who entered appearance and filed written statement as well. An application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC for rejection of plaint which was dismissed on merits by the learned Judge Family Court on 2.1.2012 holding that under Rule 6(a) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, the Court within the local limits of which the cause of action wholly or partly has been arisen shall have the jurisdiction, which order is impugned through the instant Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel- for the petitioner contends that under the Claims for Maintenance (Recovery Abroad) Ordinance, 1959 which is based on United Nations Convention, 1957 the Courts at England and Wales have the jurisdiction on receiving the complaint from transmitting agency which has been defined in Article 2(d) of said Ordinance; that the petitioner being the British National is not of Pakistani origin and, therefore, is not a Pakistan National. Places reliance on Osaka Shosen Kaisha O.S.K., Line, Japan and another Vs. Province of East Pakistan and another (PLD 1966 Dacca 481) to argue that jurisdiction of the Pakistan Courts is extendable to those foreigners who accept it or ordinarily resides inside Pakistan; the Family Court at Pakistan has no jurisdiction to decide the matter in which foreigner national is husband, notwithstanding the Nikah having been performed in Pakistan.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submits that both the petitioner and respondents are closely related to each other and are originally Pakistani National; that the petitioner married with respondent No. 2 and took her to UK where she lived for two years and a son, namely, Akhas Nazim Aziz was bom; that respondents were fraudulently brought back to Pakistan and were abandoned and even the passports of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were also snatched; the petitioner is a Pakistani National and his CNIC has been issued, which has not yet been cancelled; that under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, if the cause of action wholly or partly has been arisen inside Pakistan then the Family Courts in Pakistan have the jurisdiction to try a suit; that the jurisdiction in respect of arbitration council may have been ousted but not the Family Court. He relies on Basharat Hussain Vs. Msi. Amna Hussain and others (2004 YLR 2446) and "Anil Mussarat Hussain Vs. Muhammad Anwar Nadeem and 2 others" (1996 CLC 1406) to contend that since the issue on the jurisdiction has been framed, therefore, the Court will have to pronounce an authoritative judgment.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly, the issue on the jurisdiction has been framed by the Trial Court under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, prima facie, the Family Court at Rawalpindi is seized of the matter is required to give its finding also on the issue of jurisdiction. In Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 and Section 2(1) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 the connotation, wherever they may be, is to be liberally interpreted as it gives extension to the jurisdiction of the Family Court to Muslim citizen of Pakistan living in foreign country if the cause of action has arisen in Pakistan. Even otherwise, under the local laws the convenience of the women in matrimonial disputes is given preference. I am fortified by the view given in the judgment reported as "Anil Mussarat Hussain Vs. Muhammad Anwar Nadeem and 2 others" (1996 CLC 1406).
6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition having no merits is hereby dismissed.