MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.- This constitutional petition has been filed to assail the order dated 26.2.1991, passed by the Family Court and the order dated 4.11.1991 passed by the learned Addl: District Judge, Multan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Rukhsana Perveen, respondent No.3 instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner in the Family Court at Multan, which was resisted by the present petitioner, inter alia on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The trial court framed an issue regarding jurisdiction and decided the same in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.3, vide judgment dated 26.2.1991. The court found that the marriage of petitioner with respondent No.3 had taken place at multan and that respondent No.3 was permanent resident of Multan, although due to service contingencies she was temporarily residing at Karachi. The appellate court also took the same view and held in view of the judgments in the cases of:-
(i) Mst. Tahira Begum Vs. Matiullah and 2 others (PLD 1971 Lahore 866);
(ii) Mahbub Ahmad Vs. First Addl: District Judge and another (PLD 1976 Karachi 978);
(iii) Bibi Anwar Kliatoon Vs. Gulab Shah and 2 others (1988 Karachi 602); and
(iv) Masood Ahmad Malik Vs. Mst. Fauzia Farhana Quddus & others (1991 SGMR 681).
That the Family Court at Multan had jurisdiction in the matter.
3. The petitioner's learned counsel strenuously urged that the mere fact that the marriage had taken place at Multan was not enough to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Family Court at Multan to decide the suit filed by respondent No.3 He further urged that the parties actually resided together at Karachi and the cause of action had wholly arisen there. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, only the Family Court at Karachi had jurisdiction in the matter.
4. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court is to be determined according to the provisions of rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965 which is. Reproduced below: -
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; While interpreting the above quoted rule it was held in Mst .Tahira Begum's case that cause of action means the bundle of facts which is necessary to prove to entitle the plaintiff to a decree and that it refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, and respondent No.3 Was admittedly solemnised at Multan. The factum of marriage is the first and basic one in the series of other facts relating to cause of action. It has taken place at Multan, hence the Family Court at Multan obviously had jurisdiction to try the suit. The petitioner's learned counsel has also placed reliance on the case of Bibi Anwar Khatoon. The judgment in the said case supports the view that a Family Court has jurisdiction to try a suit within the local limits of which cause of action wholly or in part has arisen or where the parties reside or last resided together. In Masood Ahmad s case it was held that the spouses resided within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad and that Tallaq was pronounced at Islamabad and that the parties continued to reside at Islamabad, therefore, the cause of action had, prima facie, arisen in Islamabad.
Consequently it was held that the Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad did have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and the judgment of the High Court in which contrary view was taken, was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the instant case, as mentioned above, the marriage had taken place at Multan and thus part of cause of action had arisen at Multan. The judgment in Masood Ahmad Malik's case, though distinguishable on facts, supports the view that the Family Court at the place where cause of action had arisen had jurisdiction to try the suit.
5. For the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.