An attorney’s residence cannot give a Family Court territorial jurisdiction

Facts

From the judgment

The parties married on 22 January 2016 in Burewala, District Vehari; the divorce of 20 June 2024 became effective on 25 September 2024, certified by a Union Council in Tehsil Burewala. Both certificates gave both parties' address as Chak No. 493/E.B., Burewala. (para 4)

After the marriage they went to Italy, where they lived together until separating; the woman and the two children live in Italy. (paras 1, 5)

Through a special attorney living in Mandi Bahauddin she sued her former husband and his father there for maintenance and dowry articles. The plaint gave the plaintiffs' address as Burewala 'presently residing in Italy' and claimed jurisdiction only by saying the parties resided within that court's limits. (paras 3, 5)

The husband's side applied under section 25-A for transfer to Burewala. Despite service, no one appeared for the plaintiffs, who were proceeded against ex parte. (paras 1-2, 5)

Procedural history

From the judgment

1. Date not statedSuit for maintenance and dowry articles (Sidra Riaz etc. v. Jamshaid ul Hassan etc.), Judge Family Court, Mandi BahauddinPending; filed through a special attorney resident in Mandi Bahauddin (para 1, 3)
2. 12 October 2026T.A. No. 40771 of 2026 (s.25-A Family Courts Act), Lahore High Court, LahoreAllowed; suit transferred to the Family Court at Burewala, via the District Judge, Vehari (para 20)

Questions of law

1. Does the residence of a wife's attorney give a Family Court territorial jurisdiction? Our framing

   The court's answer: No. Rule 6 is for the wife's benefit; where she does not ordinarily reside there and no cause of action arose there, her attorney's residence cannot confer jurisdiction. (para 17)

2. Does the 'ordinarily resides' proviso apply to a suit only for maintenance and dowry? Our framing

   The court's answer: No. The proviso applies to suits for dissolution of marriage or dower (and claims joined with them under section 7(2)); this suit was for maintenance and dowry only. (para 7-8, 13)

3. Should the Family Court have been left to frame an issue or return the plaint? Our framing

   The court's answer: No. As the court patently lacked jurisdiction, that would be futile; the High Court transferred the suit directly. (para 19)

Arguments

From the judgment

Petitioner or appellant

The woman has lived permanently in Italy; the marriage was solemnised in Burewala, where she and her family lived; she never lived in Mandi Bahauddin. An attorney's residence cannot confer jurisdiction merely by saying in the plaint that he lives there, and there was no hardship to the woman to justify a different forum (paras 1, 3).

Court's reasoning

From the judgment

Rule 6 and its proviso

Under Rule 6 of the Family Courts Rules (Anne Zahra, 2001 SCMR 2000), jurisdiction lies where the cause of action wholly or partly arose, or where the parties reside or last resided together; the proviso adds, for suits for dissolution or dower, the court where the wife ordinarily resides. (para 6-8)

'Ordinarily resides' is for the wife

'Ordinarily resides' means the place the wife has chosen to stay, even briefly, and was enacted for her convenience (Rafiq Ahmad, 1996 CLC 1820; Shahnaz Kausar, PLD 1982 Lahore 350; Khurram Shehzad, 2017 MLD 580). It is an exception confined to the wife alone (Zahid Hussain, 2019 MLD 720). (para 9-12)

No basis for Mandi Bahauddin

The plaint did not say she ever lived in Mandi Bahauddin, before or during the marriage or on visits to Pakistan; she lives in Italy. The suit was only for maintenance and dowry, to which the proviso does not apply, and no facts showed a cause of action arising there. Under Khalid Karim (PLD 2012 SC 66) and the meaning of cause of action (Muhammad Amin, 2023 SCMR 1083), a bare averment that the parties reside there is not enough. (para 13-16)

The attorney's convenience

The suit was filed in Mandi Bahauddin because the attorney lived there. A wife may sue through an attorney, but Rule 6 serves her, not him; stretching it to the attorney's residence would lead to absurd results. Jurisdiction comes from law and cannot be conferred by consent or one party's choice (Karachi Dock Labour Board, PLD 2016 SC 121). (para 17-18)

Transfer rather than return of plaint

Because the court patently lacked jurisdiction, framing an issue or asking for return of the plaint would only waste time. The application was allowed and the suit transferred to the Family Court at Burewala through the District Judge, Vehari. (para 19-20)

Judicial observations

From the judgment

The court's exact words.

Practical implications

Our analysis

For lawyers

• When a client abroad sues through an attorney, file where Rule 6 gives jurisdiction: where the cause of action arose, where the parties reside or last lived together, or (for dissolution or dower) where she ordinarily resides in Pakistan.
• Plead the jurisdictional facts in the plaint: actual addresses, where the couple last lived, and why the court has jurisdiction. A formula sentence will not survive a transfer application.
• If a maintenance or dowry claim needs the 'ordinarily resides' proviso, join it with a suit for dissolution or dower under section 7(2).
• For the defendant: a section 25-A transfer application with marriage and divorce certificates can move a suit filed in the wrong district without a full trial on jurisdiction.

For everyone else

• If you live abroad, you can sue in Pakistan through someone you appoint, but the case must be filed in the right city, usually where you or your spouse lived, not where your representative lives.
• The rule letting a wife sue where she lives applies to divorce (dissolution) and dower cases; a case only for maintenance and dowry follows the general rules.

General points drawn from this judgment, not advice on your own case.

Limits of this judgment

Our analysis

• Decided ex parte; the woman's side did not appear to rebut the certificates and submissions.
• Concerns a suit only for maintenance and dowry by a woman living abroad; it does not limit a wife's right to sue where she ordinarily resides in a dissolution or dower suit.

Related

Our guide

• Wife and Child Maintenance Lawyer in Pakistan

Discussed in our brief

• Pakistan Family Law: Talaq & Visitation, wife’s talaq notice