--Ordinarily residence must not require proof as would be for permanent residence, such was keeping in view the agony of woman who, on being ousted by husband, sometimes did not find shelter in the house of her parents--

 Citation Name: 2019 MLD 720

KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

ZAHID HUSSAIN VS Mst. FARHANA

Ss. 7 & 8---Family Courts Rules, 1965,R. 6---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5 & Sched.---suit for dissolution of marriage---'Ordinarily resides'---Scope---Jurisdiction of Family Court---Khulla, right of---Scope---Petitioner (exhusband) contended that respondent/ plaintiff did not ordinarily reside at the address shown in her plaint and Family Court had not complied with the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 in granting decree of khulla to the respondent---Validity---Deliberate use of the phrase 'ordinarily resides' in proviso clause of R. 6 of the Family Courts Rules, 1965 was an exception confined to the 'wife' alone---Ordinarily residence must not require proof as would be for permanent residence, such was keeping in view the agony of woman who, on being ousted by husband, sometimes did not find shelter in the house of her parents---Right to claim 'khula' as well 'dower' were absolute rights of 'wife' which legally could not be resisted if the 'wife' persisted to such claim---Such entitlement, was not subject to a proof of permanent or long residence but a claim of stay of few days even would be enough for the wife to file a suit for dissolution of marriage or dower only---Claim of 'ordinarily resides' would not require proof of the standard which normally was necessary for a disputed fact but a claim on oath shouldered by independent support would be sufficient---Record revealed that claim of wife regarding her ordinary residence was backed by an inquiry (physical verification from neighbors) made by the commissioner appointed by the Family Court on the application of the petitioner, which was rightly taken as sufficient proof to take cognizance into the matter---Temporary, even one day, residence, was sufficient to seek relief of Khulla and said proposition of law had taken status of stare decisis, hence the petitioner's objections over Khulla with regard to jurisdiction was not maintainable---Compliance of Ss. 7 & 8 of Muslim Family laws Ordinance, 1961.