MUHAMMAD ADIL NAWAZ BHATTI vs CHAIRMAN UNION COUNCIL NO — 2025 PLD 340 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ADIL NAWAZ BHATTI VS CHAIRMAN UNION COUNCIL NO. 116-EME Ss. 2(b) & 7---Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, R. 3(b)---Notification S.R.O.No.1086(K)61 dated 09.11.1961---Pakistan origin spouses living abroad having developed strained relations---Divorce proceedings, carrying out of---Jurisdiction/authority---Pakistan Consulate/Mission abroad and Chairman Union Council in Pakistan---Petitioner (Overseas Pakistani) filed constitutional petition against refusal of the concerned Chairman Union Council(Respondent) to issue him divorce effectiveness certificate---Validity---Petitioner was permanently residing in Germany and record (valid Resident/Health Card) pertaining to respondent/lady showed that she was also living in Germany---Even at the time of alleged notices of Talaq the petitioner was not available in Lahore/Pakistan---In cumulative view of the provisions under Ss. 2(b) & 7 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 ('the Ordinance 1961') and R. 3(b) of the Rules made under the Ordinance 1961 as well as Notification S.R.O. No.1086(K)61 dated 09.11.1961, in the present case, the jurisdiction for taking up the matter-in-hand was with the designated officer in the Pakistan Consulate/Mission in Germany while the Union Council and/or the Chairman would have authority if the wife was residing within its territorial jurisdiction at the time of pronouncement of divorce---Thus, as per Notification S.R.O. No. 1086(K)61 dated 09.11.1961, officers of Pakistan Mission abroad are authorized to discharge the functions of Chairman under the Ordinance 1961 and the Chairman, Union Council/respondent had no authority to deal with the matter in hand in respect of divorce---Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent/Chairman Union Council (Respondent) had rightly been passed while construing law on the subject, which did not need any interference by the High Court---Constitutional petition, having no force and substance, was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD ADIL NAWAZ BHATTI vs CHAIRMAN UNION COUNCIL NO — 2025 PLD 340 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD