1. The plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-petitioner are the spouses. The wife has brought a suit of dissolution of marriage in the Court of Su Judge, Muzaffargarh. Both of them are non-State Subjects. They are the residents of village Banda Piran, Tehsil and District Manshera (Pakistan). The marriage was contracted at village Banda Piran, a place out of the jurisdiction of a Court at Muzaffarabad (A. K.). Under section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, the suit for dissolution of marriage was to be filed at a place where the marriage was contracted or where the husband resides or carries on busines or personally works for gain or where the cause of section wholly or partly, as the case may be, takes place.
2. The perusal of the plaint clearly shows that the marriage of the parties was solemnised in their native village viz. Banda Piran a place beyond the jurisdiction of a Court at Muzaffarabad (A. K.).
3. The husband definitely lives in that very village where their marriage was contracted and he permanently lives there. This is so given in the very plaint. The general rule in that the plaintiff is to sue in the Court to which the defendant is subject at the time of filing of the suit. Generally, the permanent place of residence of the defendant refers to a place where he ordinarily lives. A temporary residence of the plaintiff does not at all confer the jurisdiction upon a Court to take cognizance of a case against the defendant in any case 'unless the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the local limits of its jurisdiction.
4. The facts alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff on the basis of which she has sought a decree for dissolution of marriage are unambiguouly stated to have occurred in village Banda Piran and so the Court at Muzaffarabad (A. K.) has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit on the ground of temporary residence of the plaintiff at Muzaffarabad.
5. ' The Sub-Judge ought to have gone through the relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Code udder which jurisdiction is bestowed upon him. He failed to do so as a result of which the instant suit was entertained for hearing without jurisdiction.
6. ' The Family Courts Act, does not stand enacted and enforced in Azad Kashmir so as to enable a wife under a rule framed thereunder to file a suit in a Court of law situated at a place where she resides temporarily or otherwise.
7. ' That being so, the Sub-Judge, Muzaffarabad was absolutely wrong to take cognizance of the instant suit which is now to be returned to the plaintiff under Order VII, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for its presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction. By acceptance of this revision petition, the impugned order stands annulled.
8. Revision .