| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 432 2023 SLD 432 2023 PLC 392 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 448-P of 2017, 651-P, 655-P, 658-P and 666-P of 2019, decision Dated: 29th September, 2022. (Against the Judgments Dated 01.08.2017, 09.11.2018, 04.09.2019, 19.08.2019, 16.09.2019, passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in W.Ps.
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petitions Nos. 448-P of 2017, 651-P, 655-P, 658-P and 666-P of 2019, decision Dated: 29th September, 2022. (Against the Judgments Dated 01.08.2017, 09.11.2018, 04.09.2019, 19.08.2019, 16.09.2019, passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in W.Ps.
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), CHARSADDA and others
VS
SONIA BEGUM and others
Law: Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951
Section: 17
Law: Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952
Section: 23
(a) Domicile--- ----’Domicile’ and ‘residence’---Definition and distinction. Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), at page 558; Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition), Volume 13, at page 425 - 426; Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume XXV, at pages 2-3; Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), at page 1423; Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition), Volume 37, at pages 318 to 319; Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume LXXVII, at pages 292 to 293 and Joan Mary Carter v. Albert William Carter PLD 1961 SC 616 ref. (b) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951)--- ----S. 17---Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, R. 23---Domicile, acquisition of---’Domicile’ and ‘residence’---Distinction---Principles regarding acquisition of a domicile and the distinction between ‘domicile’ and ‘residence’ stated. To establish or get hold of a domicile, a person should have an abode at a particular place with the intent to be there for an unlimited period. In order to thrash out this particular aspect, the concept of ‘animus manendi’ (the intention of remaining) is a crucial component and a benchmark to resolve the question of dwelling and whether a person has elected any particular place for his abode rests on the facts of each case separately. The term ‘residence’ envisions a constituent of permanency in residence and does not connote occasional or intermittent dwelling for any particular period at any particular place. By and large, the domicile of a person can be the residence but the residence may or may not be the domicile or mere residence is not domicile. There is also no concept under the Citizenship Act, 1951 for two simultaneous domiciles of the same person who may inhabit at many places but he can have one domicile only which indicates his permanent place of dwelling, whereas residence is a more flexible notion than domicile. Cragnish v. Craignish [1892] 3 Ch. 180 and Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain AIR 1955 SC 36 ref. In English Law most of the jurists agree that two constituent elements for existence of domicile are, first, a residence of a particular kind; and second, an intention of a particular kind. There must be the factum and there must be the animus. The residence need not be…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492