1. ' Parties were married on 5-10-1979 at Kasur. Petitioner wife is resident of Kasur whereas respondent/husband resides at Lahore. Rukhsati in pursuance to the marriage contract admittedly has not taken place and the marriage has not been consummated so far. Faqir Hussain husband through a suit for restitution of conjugal rights prayed for restoration of marital rights and obligations. Suit was instituted before Judge Family Court at Lahore. Mst. Nusrat Bibi, defendant in her written statement objected to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Family Court at Lahore.
2. Ground urged in support of the objection was that since the marriage had been solemnized at Kasur and Rukhsati had not taken place, therefore, the Family Court at Lahore under rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Court on objection to its jurisdiction framed the following issue:-
(1) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit?
3. ' Evidence was recorded. Syed Ijaz Qutab, learned Judge Family Court, Lahore, vide judgment dated 21-1-1984 found that the Family Court at Lahore did not possess requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the controversy raised in the suit seeking restoration of marital relationship.
4. Suit was consequently dismissed. An appeal under section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 was taken before learned District Judge, Lahore by Faqir Hussain. Appeal succeeded vide judgment dated 9-6-1984. Judgment and decree dismissing the suit on account of want of jurisdiction was set aside and the suit was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law. Learned District Judge, Lahore, found that the Court had jurisdiction to proceed. Defendant in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, has invoked, constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to declare the judgment passed in appeal to be without lawful authority. The constitutional petition was admitted on 2-9-1984. Order recorded on the abovenoted date reads:- "Inter alia, contends that the suit of respondent No.2 is altogether untenable in law in so far as it is admitted that the petitioner's 'Rukhsati' had not taken place and submits that there can be no question of his claiming restitution of such rights of conjugation as had not so far come into existence. The case needs consideration. Admit. Notice."
5. ' On 13-11-1984, after hearing Mr.Yousaf Kazmi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Syed Samar Hussain Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, I had directed that proceedings before the Judge Family Court in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights shall continue but the judgment shall not be rendered. Since a short matter was involved, the case was adjourned to 3- 12-1984 for final hearing. This order was passed in the presence of the parties.
2. Today, when the case was called, a request for adjournment on behalf of Mr.Yousaf Kazmi, Advocate has been made. Reason assigned was that the principal counsel had proceeded to Islamabad in connection with some private matter. I decided not to adjourn the case. It was a family matter and only a short point for decision was involved.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Samar Hussain, Advocate, learned counsel contended that in view of rule 6(a) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, the Court at Lahore had requisite jurisdiction. It was the residence of the husband which determined the jurisdiction in case of claim for restitution of conjugal rights. Absence of Rukhsati or non- consummation of marriage, did not in any manner affect the question of jurisdiction. At the most, this question could be related to the right of the husband to seek restoration of marital relationship.
6. Certain rights flow in favour of the husband on the basis of marriage contract and the wife under law is bound to follow the abode of her husband and live with him at his residence. It was not the residence of the wife alone which determined the place of suing her for restitution of conjugal rights.
4. Under section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Family Court to entertain and adjudicate upon matters specified in the schedule i.e. dower, maintenance, restitution of conjugal rights, custody of children, guardianship, jactitation of marriage. Rules, known as West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, have been framed under section 26 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. Jurisdiction of Family Court is regulated by rule 6 of the aforenoted Rules. It reads:- "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 resided together, provided that in suits for dissolution of marriage or dower, the Court within the local limit of which the wife ordinarily resides, shall also have juris diction.
7. ' Parties have not resided together. Since Rukhsati has not taken place, therefore, question of jurisdiction in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights will be governed by rule 6(a) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965. The question arising for decision was whether cause of action for a suit by a husband claiming restitution of conjugal rights arose wholly or in part within Lahore.
8. The effects of valid (Sahih) marriage are stated in para. 265 of Mahomedan Law by D.F.Mulla. It reads:- "A valid marriage confers upon the wife the right of dower, maintenance and residence in her husband's house, imposes upon her the obligation to be faithful and obedient to him, to admit him to sexual intercourse, and to observe Iddat. It treats between the parties prohibited degrees of relation and reciprocal rights of inheritance."
9. ' Contract of marriage entered into between the parties, created a right in favour of the husband to pray for the company of wife. For claiming such a right through a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, it was not at all necessary that Rukhsati or consummation of marriage should have taken place earlier. Marriage contract itself created certain rights and obligations. One of them being that a husband can claim restoration of marital relationship. The gist of the action for restitution of conjugal rights is that the married persons are bound to live together and share the rights and obligations springing from the marriage contract. If one or the other has withdrawn himself or herself without lawful cause either before or after consummation, it is a violation of conjugal duty which entitles the injured party to seek necessary relief through a Court of law. The wife in the normal circumstances is to follow the abode of her husband. In case V.G.Venugopal Naidu v.
10. Lakshmi Ammal and another AIR .1936 Mad. 288, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dealing with the question with regard to cause of _action for a suit of restitution of conjugal rights observed:- "'The cause of action for a suit for restitution of conjugal rights arises from the duty of the wife to reside with her husband unless he has been guilty of some matrimonial offence which justifies her, in the eye of the law, in living apart from him. The fact that the wife has not previously lived with her husband within the jurisdiction cannot make any difference; neither the fact that the marriage was not consummated can make any difference. The Court where the husband lives will have juris - diction to try the suit because cause of action arises where the husband lives and where the wife refuses to live." .
11. 5.Admittedly, the residence of husband is at Lahore. He is entitled to have the company of his consort at his usual residence i.e. in Lahore. In case she refuses to join him at his residence, he can legitimately seek the assistance of the Court of competent jurisdiction at Lahore in a properly constituted suit for restitution for conjugal rights compelling her to join him at his residence. Cause of action, therefore, for a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, in the circumstances of this ease clearly arose within the territorial juris dictional limits of the Family Court at Lahore. Learned District Judge, therefore, rightly interfered in appeal and set aside the judgment passed by learned Judge Family Court. Order passed in appeal does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. Rather it has corrected an obvious error of law committed by the trial Court in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction by misconstruing the provisions of rule 6(a) of the Family Courts Rules, 1965.
12. ' In view of what has been stated above, I find no force in the present constitutional petition and proceed to dismiss it with no order as to costs.