' This be treated as an admitted case.
2. Brief facts in this case are that a suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner on 24-1-2002. The suit was resisted by the petitioner and following issues were framed on 4-9-2002, on the divergent pleadings of the parties*-- Issues.
(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for dissolution of marriage as prayed for? OPP
(2) Relief.
3. The petitioner filed an application for rejection of plaint on 4-9-2002 for want of jurisdiction. This application was replied and after hearing learned Judge Family Court dismissed the application on 19-12-2002. The case was fixed for evidence on 20-1-2003. The case was throughout pursued by special attorney of the plaintiff who was living in America. The statement of attorney of respondent was recorded on 20-1-2003 and the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 20-1-2003.
4. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner challenged the judgment on the ground that preliminary objections were raised by him in respect of territorial jurisdiction but no issue was drafted by learned Judge Family Court. The impugned judgment was passed without touching the question of preliminary objection regarding the point of territorial jurisdiction. Both the parties reside in Islamabad where the nikahnama was registered therefrom both the spouses went abroad. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed mechanically without going into factual and legal controversy existing between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that permanent residence of respondent No. I's parents is at Lahore, therefore, territorial jurisdiction of learned Judge Family Court vests in Lahore.
He further submits that since the plaintiff was residing at America she had appointed a special attorney to conduct her case and that special attorney is permissible under the law. Relies on Bibi Anwar Khatocin v. Gulab Shah and 2 others (PLD 1988 Karachi 602) and Naazreen Akhtar v. Family Judge, Lahore and another (PLD 1996 Lahore 394) where it is held that the purpose of the Family.
Court is to settle the dispute as early as possible to give speedy justice and Family Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit within the local limits of which, cause of action, wholly or in par, had arisen or where parties resided or last resided together. Court within local limits of which wife ordinarily resides would also have jurisdiction in suits for dissolution of marriage or dower.
Therefore, the suit has been rightly decided.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. It is decided in 2002 MLD 1826, that sections 10 and 12 representation of respondent through agent AJ&K Family Courts Act, 1993 does not take away right of a counsel or agent to appear and act for or on behalf of his client, therefore, bar cannot be created for a lady not to be represented through her duly authorized agent or counsel. It was further held that non-compliance of provisions of sections 10 and 12 of AJ&K Family Courts Act, 1993 do not justify to set aside decree for dissolution of marriage passed by Family Court inasmuch as, non-compliance thereof was merely irregularity and same would not vitiate the proceedings of Family Court.
8. Family Court being a Civil Court has jurisdiction where cause of action has accrued or where the parties permanently reside or ordinarily lastly resided. The marriage is taken place in Pakistan. The Courts who will have the territorial jurisdiction will be the Courts in Pakistan. The permanent address of respondent No.1 's parents is in Defence Lahore and it is recorded on the writ petition that permanent residence of respondent No.1 is 275-M, Defence Housing Society Lahore Cantt.
Therefore, learned Family Court at Lahore had the territorial jurisdiction to pass a decree in a suit for dissolution of marriage. Finding no substance in this writ petition, the same is dismissed.