Overseas Divorce in Pakistan:
Nazia Law Firm in One of the Best Law Firm for Services of Overseas Divorce in Pakistan & Divorce Procedure for Overseas Pakistani. Parties were married in Karachi, where their marriage certificate was registered. After going to Canada, Parties entered into another marriage to satisfy the requirements of the law of Canada. Overseas divorce in Pakistan was obtained in Canada through the concerned Supreme Court. Family Court returned the objection to the wife in case of overseas divorce in Pakistan. Appellate Court set aside said order and remanded the case for its decision after recording evidence of the parties.
Appellate Court:
The husband contended that the order of the Appellate Court was not legal as both the parties were Canadian nationals. Husband had not shown that parties had lost their Pakistani citizenship. Registration of marriage certificate as well as the residence of wife at Karachi was not disputed by husband. Second marriage in Canada was an exercise in futility as second marriage over and above an existing marriage cannot be entertained. The wife was justified in instituting a suit of overseas divorce in Pakistan. The impugned order was not suffering from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error.
Petitioner:
High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition. Petitioner was a British national who had divorced raised. Such a plea was not raised before Revision Court. Request of lack of jurisdiction in Court that Petitioner was a British national who had divorced the respondent was raised. Proceedings for recovery of past maintenance and that of the iddat period were initiated under S. 9 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Both the Courts below granted past maintenance along with a period of 90 days. The grievance of Petitioner was that the Courts below had wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the matter as the Petitioner was not a Muslim citizen of Pakistan and period of iddat was 39 days which was incorrectly fixed as 90 days. Petitioner did not raise a point of the jurisdiction in the contents of the revision petition filed below; therefore, he was not permitted to argue the same before High Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
Iddat Period:
Judgments of both the Tribunals below to the extent of the iddat period were not under the dictum laid down by Supreme Court in a case titled Allah Dad v. Mukhtar reported as 1992 SCMR 1273. High Court modified judgments passed by both the Tribunals below to the extent that instead of granting maintenance of iddat period consisting of 90 days, the same was reduced to 39 days.
Notice of Divorce:
The petition was disposed of accordingly. Petitioner had challenged the notice of divorce filed by wife in the concerned Union Council on the ground that such notice was required to be filed at a place of residence of the spouse against whom such right was to be exercised. The wife opposed the assertions submitted by Petitioner. She contended that Rule 3(b) of the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 applied mutatis mutandis to wife. She could file such notice at the place where she resided.
Muslim Family law:
The language of the rule asserted by Petitioner was to be given notice of divorce. Its literal interpretation and the right of divorce exercised either by a husband or by wife had to be notified to the Union Council where the wife/woman resided at the appropriate time. Section 8 read with S. 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and Rule 3(b) of the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 clearly showed that the Union Council within whose territorial limits the woman resided had the requisite jurisdiction in the matter of overseas divorce in Pakistan.
Constitutional jurisdiction:
High Court declined to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction. Petitioner had sought quashing of the divorce confirmation certificate and declaration to the effect that respondent was still his legally wedded wife. Petitioner, who pronounced divorce upon respondent through S.M.S., had claimed that after the pronouncement of divorce, within no times same was withdrawn by way of recourse. No proceedings under S. 7 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 were initiated by the Petitioner, impugned divorce confirmation certificate could not be issued and that since Petitioner claimed to have made recourse and defendant had denied, an impugned certificate could not have been issued, without recording evidence. Court decided the divorce certificate was valid.
