P L D 1960 (W (PLP)
MARGOT ELIZABETH THERISA‑Petitioner Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD SHARI F‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1960 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | G. B. Constantine, Illahi Bakhsh Khamisani and A. S. Farugui, JJ |
| Parties | MARGOT ELIZABETH THERISA‑Petitioner Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD SHARI F‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1960 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1960 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: G. B. Constantine, Illahi Bakhsh Khamisani and A. S. Farugui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1960 (W (PLP) (MARGOT ELIZABETH THERISA‑Petitioner Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD SHARI F‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saeed A. Ansari for Petitioner.
- Y. R. Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 7th March, 1960.
Headnotes / Summary
Divorce Act (IT' of 1869), S. 2 and S. 7‑Marriage solemnized in England‑Courts in Pakistan have no jurisdiction to make decrees of nullity of marriage‑Section 7 does not override S. 2‑No general principles or English common law rules can be invoked in presence of clear provisions of statute.
Judgment & Decree
CONSTANTINE, J.‑This is an application under section 18 of the Divorce Act (IV of 1869) praying that the petitioner's marriage celebrated in England in 1953 with the respondent should be declared null and void The ground for the declaration is that they purported to intermarry under the Marriage Act, 1949, of England, but at the time the respondent was already married, according to Muslim Law, to two previous wives. She states that the respondent later purported to divorce her according to Muslim Law. The decree has been granted by the learned District judge, but when this matter came before this Bench of three Judges, it immediately struck us that the Courts in Pakistan have no jurisdiction in this matter. Section 2 provides that nothing hereinafter contained shall authorise any Court to . . . . . . . . . make decrees of nullity of marriage, except where the marriage if solemnized before the 15th day of August, 1947, has been solemnized in India and if solemnized on or after that date has been solemnized in Pakistan, and the petitioner is resident in Pakistan at the time of presenting the petition". As stated above the marriage was solemnized neither in India nor in Pakistan, but in England ; this being so it is clear that the above words contained in section 2 bar the jurisdiction of the Courts in Pakistan to grant a decree of nullity. Mr. Saeed relied upon section 7 of the Divorce Act, but that section, in our opinion, merely provides that, if the Court has jurisdiction, then it shall act upon the principles and rules on] which a Court for Divorce in England acts and gives relief. This section does not override section
2. Mr. Saeed also relied upon English rulings regarding which Court has jurisdiction to grant decrees of nullity. But so far as we know in England the question of jurisdiction is still governed by the common law anal it f s for the Courts to lay down the principles upon which they will act. Here in Pakistan we have a Statute and it is obvious that where we have a statute the common c law yields to the Statute. We cannot invoke any general principles in order to override the clear words of the Statute. The result, therefore, is that the decree granted by the District Judge is set aside. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. A. H. Decree set aside.