2022 PLP 1141 (MLD)

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.

The instant petition was presented on 03-11-2020 and since then the counsel for the petitioner neither complied with the office objection nor appeared to satisfy about the maintainability of the instant petition. On every date of hearing, either he sought adjournment or a brief was held on his behalf and on several dates he remained absent. Nevertheless, today he appears and prefers his submission regarding the maintainability of the instant petition.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the instant petition pertains to detention of the wife of the petitioner, as such it will make no difference that presently the detainee is allegedly confined beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that the petitioner has entered into marital bond with alleged detainee Mst. Fariha Aslam on her own free will and accord but later on when the parents of the detainee contacted the petitioner and promised him to give the hand of their daughter in a formal ceremony, the petitioner has handed over her wife to them for taking her to the Punjab. He submits that now the parents of his wife are not fulfilling their promise and he had come to know through a phone call that they are pressurizing his wife to get her marriage dissolved by way of Khula. He submits that this court is competent to issue directions to the official respondents including SSP Muzaffar Garh, Punjab as well as the private respondents residing in Kot Addu, Muzaffar Garh to produce the alleged detainee so that she may give her opinion without any pressure and after recording her statement she should be handed over to the petitioner.

3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the available record. It appears that the petitioner has married to the alleged detainee namely Mst. Fariha who was the permanent resident of Muzaffar Garh while the act of swearing of affidavit of free-will and nikkah were done in Khairpur. It is an admitted fact that the alleged detainee was handed over by the petitioner to her parents, as such it is not a case of forcible detention or disappearance. It is also an admitted position that presently the wife of the petitioner is residing with her parents in a district of the province of Punjab. I am unable to find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that regarding habeas corpus petition, this court has jurisdiction beyond the territories of the Province of Sindh. In this respect, I would like to say that the jurisdiction under Article 199 (1) (b) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the jurisdiction of a High Court has been clearly defined, which reads as: "

199. Jurisdiction of High Court. (1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law - (b) on the application of any person, make an order - (i) directing that a person in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner;...."

4. In the above, Article of the Constitution, the underline are supplied by me for emphasizing. From the above provision of the Constitution it is clear that for such type of matters, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the territories of the province of Sindh only. Hence, the instant petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed in limine. MH/G-11/Sindh Petition dismissed.