Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4479 = 2026 SLD 4479 = 2026 LHC 5645
Lahore High Court
W.P. No.6627 of 2023
Presented By: (Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) J
Date of hearing:     11.09.2026.           Petitioner by:           Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Awan, Advocate.                                
Respondent by:      Mr.    Muhammad    Latif    Khan    Khattak, Advocate. 

Shagufta Bibi

VERSUS

Additional District Judge, Jahania & others

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 7(2)

SUMMARY;   The High Court allowed the constitutional petition and set aside the appellate judgment dated 15.03.2023 of the Additional District Judge, Jahanian, which had dismissed the wife’s family suit for want of territorial jurisdiction. The wife had filed a composite suit for Khula, maintenance, recovery of dowry articles/alternate value, and treatment expenses. After reconciliation failed, Khula was granted, and the Family Court awarded her Rs.15,000 as Iddat maintenance and Rs.150,000 as alternate value of dowry articles, while rejecting past maintenance and treatment expenses. The appellate court nullified the entire decree merely because the wife had referred in cross-examination to residence at Chak No.158/WB, Tehsil Mailsi. The High Court held that this was selective appreciation of evidence because the appellate court ignored the wife’s consistent assertion, supported by PW-2 (her father), that she ordinarily resided at Chak No.119/10-R within Jahanian’s jurisdiction. The Court held that under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, particularly its proviso, a wife may institute a dissolution-of-marriage suit where she ordinarily resides; this does not mean permanent, long-term, or property-owning residence. The expression must be construed beneficially to provide an estranged wife an accessible forum. It further held that maintenance and dowry claims could validly be combined with Khula proceedings under section 7(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1964. A territorial objection is distinct from absence of inherent subject-matter jurisdiction and cannot invalidate completed proceedings without proof of prejudice or failure of justice. Since the appellate court neither properly assessed the evidence of ordinary residence nor examined the merits of the Family Court’s findings, the High Court restored the Family Court’s judgment and decree dated 21.12.2022, with no order as to costs.     JUDGMENT SHEET MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.:-                                              …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register