1992 PLP 2267 (CLC)

(i) Mst. Tahira Begum v. Matiullah and 2 others (PLD 1971 Lah. 866); (ii) Mahbub Ahmad v. First Additional District Judge and another (PLD 1976 Kar. 978); (iii) Bibi Anwar Khatoon v. Gulab Shah and 2 others (PLD 1988 Kar. 602), and (iv) Masood Ahmad Malik v. Mst. Fauzia Farhana Quddus and others (1991 SCMR 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 riled 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 Courts 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, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiffs ask the Court to arrive at a conclusion. Before a wife can claim a decree for dissolution of marriage she has to allege that actually her valid marriage had taken place with the defendant and thereafter she has to prove other relevant facts, constituting cause of action. If the facturn of marriage itself is not proved then all other facts constituting cause of action and the grounds for claiming dissolution become redundant. Looked at from this angle, cause of action partly arises at the place where the marriage of spouses is solemnised. In Tahira Begum's case (which otherwise pertains to a claim for grant of maintenance) while dealing with the question of cause of action, the Court was pleased to hold as under:‑‑ "The maintenance is asked on the basis of the relationship of husband and wife, and marriage is, therefore, a fact which requires to be proved before the other facts, that may be alleged in the plaint as to how and under what circumstances and in which event that wife had become entitled to be separately maintained. It is, therefore, the primary fact that has to be alleged and proved. The fact of marriage would, therefore, form part of the cause of action and the places of marriage where part of the cause of action arises would also be a place where the suit could be instituted." In the present case, marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was admittedly solemnised at Multan. The facturn 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 Ahmed's case it was held that the spouses resided within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad and that Talaq 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 rind no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./214/A‑L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed