Wife Can Obtain Khula from Pakistan Even if Residing Abroad: Supreme Court Judgment.
 |
| Case law on jurisdiction of Khulla |
فیملی کورٹ کیس میں اپیل مسترد کر دی
بیوی پاکستان میں موجود نہ ہونے کے باوجود پاکستان سے خلع حاصل کر سکتی ہے: سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
---
تعارف
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے سول درخواستیں نمبر 488-K اور 489-K، دائرہ اختیار کے تحت، کراچی ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھتے ہوئے اپیل مسترد کر دی۔ یہ فیصلے اس وقت دائر کی گئی تھیں جب شوہر (سہیل احمد) نے ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف سپریم کورٹ سے رجوع کیا تھا، جس میں ان کی دو آئینی درخواستیں (C.P.No.S-262/2021 اور C.P.No.S-457/2021) خارج کی گئی تھیں۔
---
اہم نکات
1. شادی اور تنازع:
شادی پاکستان اور امریکہ کی دوہری شہریت رکھنے والی مسٹر سمریانہ رشید کے ساتھ ہوئی، جو نیو یارک، یو ایس اے میں رجسٹر ہوئی۔
دَرخواست کا مہر US$5000 طے پایا۔
تقریباً 9 ماہ کے بعد شوہر نے سخت اور غیر ذمہ دارانہ رویہ اختیار کیا اور پاکستان واپس آ گیا۔
نتیجہ کے طور پر اختلافات بڑھ گئے اور بیوی نے خلا اور نفقہ کے لیے فیملی کورٹ کراچی میں مقدمہ دائر کیا۔
2. عدالتی کارروائی:
شوہر نے عدالت پر دائرہ اختیار کی بنیاد پر اعتراض کیا کہ شادی امریکہ میں ہوئی اور مقدمہ بھی وہیں کا واقعہ ہے۔
فیملی کورٹ نے اس اعتراض کو مسترد کیا اور مقدمہ آگے بڑھایا۔
بعد میں بیوی نے کچھ دعوے واپس لینے کی درخواست دی جسے عدالت نے منظور کر لیا۔
3. سپریم کورٹ کا موقف:
سپریم کورٹ نے فیملی کورٹ کے دائرہ اختیار کے قانون (West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965، Rule 6) کی تشریح کی:
فیملی کورٹ میں مقدمہ دائر کرنے کی جگہ وہ ہے جہاں
1. جزوی یا مکمل طور پر تنازعہ ہوا، یا
2. فریقین آخری بار رہائش پذیر تھے۔
شوہر کی مستقل رہائش کے برعکس بیوی کی "ordinary residence" یعنی عارضی یا معمولی رہائش بھی کافی ہے۔
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ قانون کا مقصد بیوی کی سہولت اور تحفظ ہے، خاص طور پر جب بیوی دوہری شہریت کی حامل ہو اور دوسرے ملک میں رہائش پذیر ہو۔
4. نتیجہ:
سپریم کورٹ نے کہا کہ تمام قانونی اور حقیقی پہلوؤں کا جائزہ لیا گیا اور کوئی قانونی نقائص نہیں پائے گئے۔
مقدمہ دائر کرنے کی اپیل بے بنیاد قرار پائی اور مزید اپیل کی اجازت مسترد کر دی گئی۔
سپریم کورٹ نے اس کیس میں جو منفرد نکتہ طے کیا ہے وہ مغربی پاکستان فیملی کورٹس رولز 1965 کے رول 6 کے تحت فیملی کورٹس کے دائرہ اختیار کی تشریح ہے۔ خاص طور پر، عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ اصطلاح "عام طور پر رہتی ہے" جیسا کہ شرط میں استعمال کیا گیا ہے۔ قاعدہ 6، پاکستان میں فیملی کورٹس کو شادی کے مقدمے کو تحلیل کرنے کا دائرہ اختیار کرنے کی اجازت دیتا ہے چاہے بیوی بیرون ملک مقیم ہو، بشرطیکہ اس کے پاکستان سے اہم روابط ہوں، جیسے خاندانی تعلقات اور بار بار جانا۔
عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ "عام طور پر رہائش پذیر" کو مستقل رہائش کی ضرورت نہیں ہے۔ یہ کافی ہے اگر رہائش عام، معمول، یا رواج ہو۔ اس تشریح کا مقصد خواتین کی طرف سے مقدمہ دائر کرنے میں سہولت فراہم کرنا ہے اور خاندانی تنازعات میں ان کی سہولت پر غور کرنا ہے، اس طرح فیملی کورٹ ایکٹ 1964 کے تحت انصاف تک ان کی رسائی میں مدد ملتی ہے۔
The unique point decided by the Supreme Court in this case is the interpretation of jurisdiction for Family Courts under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965. Specifically, the Court clarified that the term "ordinarily resides," as used in the proviso to Rule 6, allows Family Courts in Pakistan to have jurisdiction over a dissolution of marriage suit even if the wife resides abroad, provided she has significant connections to Pakistan, such as familial ties and frequent visits.
The Court emphasized that "ordinarily resides" does not require permanent residence; it suffices if the residence is common, usual, or customary. This interpretation aims to facilitate the filing of suits by women and considers their convenience in family disputes, thereby supporting their access to justice under the Family Court Act, 1964.
Must read judgement.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Civil Petition No. 488-K of 2023 and 489-K of 2023
[Against order dated 06.02.2023 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P.No.S-
262 of 2021 and C.P.No.S-457 of 2021]
Sohail Ahmed
(in both cases)
…Petitioner(s)
Versus
Mst. Samreena Rasheed Memon and another (in both cases)
…Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s)
: In-person
For the Respondent(s)
: N.R.
Date of Hearing
: 20.12.2023
JUDGMENT
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J:- Through these petitions, filed
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner (Sohail Ahmed) has challenged the order
dated 06.02.2023 (“Impugned Order”) passed by learned Single Judge
of High Court of Sindh whereby two Constitutional petitions (C.P.No.S-
262/2023 and C.P.No.457/2023) filed by him were dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant case are
that Respondent (Samreena Rasheed), a dual citizen of Pakistan and United
States of America (USA), contracted a marriage, duly registered at the
New York, USA, with petitioner in accordance with Islamic law against a
dower amount of US $ 5000.
However, within 9 months of marriage, Petitioner maintained a
harsh and irresponsible behaviour with the Respondent and also
returned to Pakistan. Consequently, hatred developed between the
spouses and respondent, through her duly constituted Attorney (Mr. Abdul
Jabbar Memon s/o Abdul Fateh Memon), filed a Family suit No. 3414 of 2019
dated 12.10.2019 in the court of Family Judge Karachi, East for the
dissolution of marriage by way of Khula and maintenance. The Petitioner
contested the suit by filing an Application dated 17.12.2019 for dismissal
of suit/return of plaint on the ground that Courts in Pakistan have no
jurisdiction to entertain the case because marriage was solemnized in
USA and the cause of action also accrued therein. This Application was
dismissed by the Family Court vide order dated 27.02.2021, which was
assailed by the petitioner before High Court through C.P.No.S-262 of
2021.
Thereafter, in the family suit reconciliation proceedings were
conducted. However, on failure of such reconciliation proceedings, an
order for the dissolution of marriage by way of Khula was passed on
10.04.2021 by Family Court and preliminary decree was prepared on the
same day. The suit was fixed for evidence in respect of prayer clauses (ii),
(iii) and (iv). Respondent filed a statement dated 28.04.2021 supported
with an affidavit of her attorney for the withdrawal of the suit in respect
of prayer clauses clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv). The suit was disposed of as
withdrawn by the trial court vide order dated 07.05.2021.
Being aggrieved with the said order, Petitioner filed another
Constitutional Petition No. S-457 of 2021 challenging the withdrawal of
the suit. Both the petitions filed by the petitioner were consolidated and
decided by the High Court through the impugned order dated
06.02.2023.
5. The petitioner, appearing in-person, contended that the
impugned order of High Court suffers from illegality and is perverse in
law thus liable to be set aside and the issue of jurisdiction of Family
Court was decided in contravention of the law.
6. We have heard the arguments of the petitioner and have
perused the record and the relevant materials placed before the Court.
7. With regard to the question raised before us by the petitioner
as to whether Family Courts in Pakistan have jurisdiction to entertain
the case when the plaintiff/wife is a dual citizen of Pakistan and the USA
and is residing in the USA at the time of the institution of the suit,
whereas, the husband is national and permanent resident of Pakistan.
In this regard Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 is
relevant which is reproduced herein-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.
Provided that in suits for dissolution of marriage or dower,
the court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily
resides shall also have jurisdiction.”
8. In the above-proviso, the Legislature has intentionally used
the word "ordinarily" which has a different meaning than that of
permanent residence. According to Black’s Law Dictionary (VIth Edition)
word "ordinary" means “usual, common, settled, customary, and
reasonable”. Furthermore, Dicey, a renowned jurist, in his book, "Conflict
of Laws" at page 96 explains expression "Ordinarily resides" in the
following words:
“It is not, as a matter of law, necessary that the residence
should be long in point of time, residence for a few days or even
for part of a day is enough. The length of residence is not
important in itself".1
9. In the present case, although the Respondent is living in the
USA at the time of the institution of the suit through her duly
constituted attorney. However, the respondent usually comes to
Pakistan; have acquired her education in Karachi and visits her family in
Karachi from time to time.
1
Dicey A. V. & Morris J. H. C. (1949). Dicey's conflict of laws (6th ed.). Stevens & Sons ; Sweet &
Maxwell.
10. By this proviso, the rigour of normal rule providing for
territorial jurisdiction for trial of cases in Family Court have been relaxed
in favour of female filing a suit for dissolution of marriage or recovery of
dower. The words "Ordinarily resides" and "shall also have jurisdiction"
used in proviso demonstrate the intention of parliament is to facilitate
things for the wife and off-set her handicap. Therefore, the option of
instituting such suits vests with the wife and the Court is bound to take
her convenience subject to law. Hence, Family Courts in Pakistan have
jurisdiction to entertain the matter and the trial court has rightly
exercised so.
11. West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (“Act”) was
promulgated for the expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes with
regard to the marriage and other family affairs and also provides special
procedure to achieve such object. Being special law, it creates the
special courts for determination of the family disputes in order to
advance justice and to avoid technicalities.
12. For understanding and resolving the question in dispute,
it is appropriate to reproduce section 10 of the Act;
"10. Pre-trial proceeding:- (1) When the written statement
is filed, the Court shall fix an early date for a pre-trial hearing of
the case.
(2) On the date so fixed, the Court shall examine the plaint, the
written statement (if any) and the precise of evidence and
documents filed by the parties and shall also, if it so deems fit
hear the parties, and their counsel.
(3) At the pre-trial, the Court shall ascertain the points at issue
between the parties and attempt to effect a compromise or
reconciliation between the parties if this be possible.
(4) If no compromise or reconciliation is possible the Court shall
frame the issues in the case and fix a date for recording of the
evidence)".
Provided that notwithstanding any decision or judgment of any
Court or Tribunal, the Family Court in a suit for dissolution of
marriage, if reconciliation fails, shall pass decree for
dissolution of marriage forthwith and also restore the
husband the Haq Mehr received by the wife in consideration of
marriage at the time of marriage.”
13. The Legislature while introducing amendment in the
Family Court Act, 1964 has derived wisdom from Quran and Sunnah.
Islam confers the right of Khula to woman by virtue of which a Muslim
woman can get herself released from the bond of marriage if she feels,
due to any reason, that she could not live with her husband within the
limits prescribed by Allah Almighty. The right and mode of "Khula" has
been described by Almighty Allah in verse No. 229 of Surah Baqra,
translation of which is as under:--
"229. The divorce is twice, after that, either you retain her on
reasonable term or release her with kindness. And it is not lawful
for you (men) to take back (from wives) any of your Mahr (bridal
money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage)
which you have given them, except when both parties fear that
they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah (e.g. to
deal with each other on a fair basis). Then if you fear that they
would not be able to keep the limits ordained by Allah, then there
is no sin on either of them if she given back (Mahr or a part of it) for
her `Al-Khul' (divorce). These are the limits ordained by Allah, so do
not transgress them. And whoever transgress the limits ordained
by Allah, then such are the Zalimun (wrong-doers, etc.)".
14. The proviso to section 10 empowers the Family Courts to pass
a preliminary decree for the dissolution of Marriage forthwith upon the
failure of reconciliation and further provides that wife shall be ordered to
return the Haq Mehr received by her.
15. Section 10(3) imposes a legal obligation on the Family Courts
to make a genuine attempt for reconciliation between the parties. Trial
Court shall remain instrumental and make genuine efforts in resolving
the dispute between the parties. In case if despite of genuine efforts,
reconciliation fails, the Trial Court under proviso of section 10(4), without
recording evidence is empowered to pass a decree of dissolution of
marriage forthwith. At this juncture if the court observes that the wife
without any reason is not willing to live with her husband, then under
proviso (ibid) the Court is left with no option, but to dissolve the marriage.
16. Islam does not force on the spouses a life devoid of harmony
and happiness and if the parties cannot live together as they should, it
permits a separation.
17. In the present case, the preliminary decree passed by the
Family Court for the dissolution of marriage by way of Khula was in due
compliance with the section 10(4) of the Act. Furthermore, vide order
dated 10.04.2021 direction was given to frame issues for remaining
controversies.
18. However, on 28.04.2021, Respondent filed a statement for
withdrawal of the suit to the extent of prayer clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv).
Therefore, suit was disposed of by trial court as withdrawn by order
dated 07.05.2021. Thus, preliminary decree already passed/prepared
shall be deemed to be the final decree as the respondent has already
withdrawn the suit to extent of remaining prayer clauses.
19. It reveals from the record that after preliminary decree of
Khula, Respondent has contracted a second marriage at the USA. The
Petitioner has also attempted to contract second marriage here in
Pakistan as he has made several applications to the concerned
authorities for seeking permission to solemnize second marriage.
Since, the marriage inter se parties stands dissolved, we observe that the
petitioner is unnecessarily dragging the respondent into litigation.
20. The orders passed by the courts below are well reasoned
and we are in complete agreement with them. All aspects of the matter,
either legal or factual, have been dealt with elaborately and the
conclusion(s) drawn are apt. The petitioner has failed to point out any
infirmity or illegality which could persuade us to interfere in the
impugned judgment.
21. For what has been discussed above, the petitions being
meritless are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Bench
Karachi
20th December, 2023
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Paras Zafar, LC*/
JUDGE