The petitioner has assailed the notice of Talaq issued to her by respondent No.1. The Chairman, Arbitration Council. 97-Gulberg, Lahore, dated 11-12-2001, whereby, he had directed the petitioner to appear before him since the proceedings were initiated from the notice sent to respondent. No. 1, by respondent No. 2, Manzar Riaz with whom petitioner had entered into marriage in Oklahoma on 15th of August, 1980.
2. Learned counsel .For the petitioner has argued that both petitioner and respondent No.2 are citizens of the U.S.A. That they had contracted marriage in the U.S.A. State of Oklahoma, therefore, respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to entertain any notice sent by respondent No.2 regarding purported Talaq executed by him against the present petitioner and the proceedings initiated on the basis of notice sent by respondent No.2 are without lawful authority. Learned counsel has also argued that only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the matrimonial dispute between the parties by applying the proper law and that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the notice since Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is applicable to only Muslim citizens of Pakistan while admittedly both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are American citizens and once a person becomes American citizen, his Pakistani citizenship is no longer available.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the petition on the grounds that the document, which is relied upon by the petitioner regarding marriage between the parties, is a marriage licence issued by the State of Oklahoma and mere obtaining marriage, licence from Oklahoma does not imply that they have become American citizens that petitioner and respondent No.2 are admittedly residing in Pakistan. Petitioner has given her address as 78/A-B/3, Gulberg --III, Lahore. She had admittedly received copy of notice of divorce from the Chairman, Arbitration Council, 97-Gulberg, Lahore, and respondent No.2, Manzar Riaz is also residing at the address 6-B/Miran Mah Shah Road, Muhammad Ali Society, Karachi from where he sent notice to petitioner since they are both Muslim citizens and once respondent No.2 had pronounced irrevocable divorce on the petitioner and hid also sent notice to her, the divorce had attained finality even if respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the notice. Learned counsel has relied on the cases cited as Mst. Amira Bokhari v. Faqir Syed Jameel ud Din Bokhari PLD 1994 Lah.
236, Mst. Ambreen Shah v. The Chairman, Arbitration Council 2002 MLD 778 in this behalf. According to him Talaq has now become final and no relief can be given to the petitioner to the effect that she is not divorced by respondent No.2. Learned counsel has also relied upon the case of Muhammad Daud v. Mst. Surriya Iqbal and another PLD 2000 Peshawar 54 to argue that the relief which cannot be given directly can also not be given indirectly. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that once, triple divorce has been given by respondent No. 2 to petitioner, it would become effective regardless of citizenship of the parties. He has also pointed out that respondent No.2 is still citizen of Pakistan, copy of his passport dated 11 of July, 1996 has been appended with the petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the documents appended with this petition by the petitioner as well as the documents appended by respondent No.2 with his reply.
5. The documents produced by the petitioner show that both the parties hold American passports at present, therefore, they are admittedly citizens of the U.S.A. The law of the U.S.A. Is clear on the point that once a person claims American nationality, he cannot hold nationality of other country including the country of his origin. If any Ordinance is promulgated in Pakistan to the effect that Pakistani citizens can hold dual citizenship, it would not override U.S. Law according to which a person attains American citizenship he has to renounce his Pakistan citizenship. Even otherwise, the Pakistan Passport of respondent No.2, which was issued on 11th of July, 1996 would have expired after five years. Therefore, both the parties being American citizens, the provisions of, Muslim Family Laws Ordinance would have to be examined in the light of this established fact. The scope and amplitude of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is given in section 1(2) in the following terms:- - "(2) It (Muslim Family Laws Ordinance) extends to the whole of Pakistan and applies- to all Muslim citizens of Pakistan, wherever they may be. "
It has been held by the august Supreme Court in the case cited as Masood Ahmed Malik v. Mst.
Fouzia Farhana Quddus and others 1991 SCMR 681 and by this Court in the case of Saima Rashid v.
Imrana Riaz Imami and another 1993 CLC 1331 that provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance extend to Muslim citizens of Pakistan only and they are residing outside Pakistan but are not applicable to Muslims who are not citizens of Pakistan and are also not applicable to non --Muslim citizens of Pakistan. It was specifically held in the latter case that the Chairman, Arbitration Council has no authority to entertain notice of divorce against his spouse issued by a person, who is not citizen of Pakistan. The above mentioned case is on all fours with the present case. Both the parties are American citizens since both have American Passports. The marriage was contracted in the U.S.A., therefore, the parties would be covered by the law of the State where their marriage was contracted anti all disputes arising there from including proceedings of divorce would be covered by the law of the State of Oklahoma, therefore respondent No.1, Chairman, Arbitration Council, 97- Gulberg, Lahore, has no jurisdiction to entertain the notice sent to him by respondent No. 2 regarding divorce that he has pronounced on the present petitioner.
7. In view of above discussion, this petition is accepted and any proceedings conducted by respondent No.1 on the notice sent to him by respondent No.2 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties are left to bear their own costs.th