Domicile

  1. Domicile of origin — Abandonment of — Proof of — If a person who wants to obtain domicile certificate to prove that he fulfil necessary condition. Miss Shahida Bano v. Azad Govt. and 5 others 1997 SCR 301 (D)
  2. Prior to the issuance of a domicile certificate appellant must have been continuously residing in Muzaffarabad for a period of five years — Domicile of origin — Return of — Contention of the learned counsel that domicile of origin would revive on appellant return to Muzaffarabad not tenable. Miss Shahida Bano  v. Azad Govt. and 5 others 1997 SCR 301 (F)
  3. ‘Domicile of origin’ or ‘domicile of choice’ — Held: Such status once lost cannot revive unless the condition of law of the land are satisfied. Miss Shahida Bano  v. Azad Govt. and 5 others 1997 SCR 301 (G)
  4. P.S.C. advertised some posts of Section Officers in the Law Department — Two posts were to be filled in from amongst Jammu & Kashmir refugees settled in Pakistan — Domicile certificate of the appellant was challenged on the ground that it was based on misrepresentation and in fact he was not settled in Pakistan — It was stated that firstly domicile certificate was obtained from Distt. Poonch and subsequently from Distt. Kasur getting his previous certificate cancelled — The post against which appellant was about to be recommended by P.S.C. was reserved for Jammu & Kashmir refugees settled in Pakistan — Domicile certificate is an essential requirement — from record it is clear that the appellant was born, brought up and educated in AJK — He has all along been practising law in AJ&K and address given in his license is not that of Kasur but of poonch — Since the Certificate has been cancelled, there is no proof on the basis of which appellant can claim to be a refugee settled in Pakistan. Pervaiz Akhtar v. Rashid Majeed and 3 others 2000 SCR 452 (A)
  5. The legal position is clear that after marriage the appellant by fiction of law had acquired the domicile of the husband — The husband of the appellant was domicile of District Sudhnooti — The PSC during the scrutiny of papers should have considered her as domicile of district Sudhnooti. Mussarat Begum v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2004 SCR 386 (A)
  6. Domicile of origin — abandonment — its revival by the State Subjects for admission in educational institutions. Held: the domicile of origin remains intact unless it is abandoned or surrendered by obtaining the domicile of choice. The statutory condition of 5 years continuous residence although appears to be reasonable for persons who are not State Subjects and being non-State Subjects, they have to obtain the domicile certificate of origin but the class of persons who being State Subject have opted for domicile of choice of place out of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and subsequently after abandonment of such domicile certificate want revival of domicile of origin, the condition of 5 years in such eventuality appears to be irrational and harsh which may result into deprivation of the legal rights of the State Subjects especially in the matter of education. For protection of the rights of such person proper amendments and changes in the relevant law are inevitable. For protection of such class suitable amendments are required in which the period of 5 years may be reduced like that as in Pakistan, the period of 1 year for obtaining the domicile certificate is required. The Government has been directed to take necessary steps in this regard. Further held: the appellant’s case falls within another class like one dealt with in the Imran Ali’s case. The direction given in the referred case has been reiterated. Beenish Bashir v. D.C/District Magistrate & 6 others  2014 SCR 327 (H&I) (Imran Ali  vs.  PSC and others (Civil Appeal No.921 dated 11.1.2013). Directions and view taken, reiterated).
  7. Domicile of origin — a State Subject cannot be deprived of the domicile of origin merely for the reason that he or his parents, for economic purpose, service or business, are temporarily residing out of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Beenish Bashir v. D.C/District Magistrate & 6 others 2014 SCR 327 (A)
  8.   —Married woman—appointment in service. see Muhammad Sameeb Khan v. AJ&K P.S.C & others 2022 SCR 552 (D)
  9. — conflict of laws — rule 23, Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952 and section 5, AJK State Subject Act, 1980 — rule 7, AJK State Subject Rules, 1980 — different period provided for eligibility to obtain domicile — under rule 23 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, supra, it is essential for a person to live continuously in Pakistan for one year before applying the domicile certificate, but under the law, in AJK prescribes a longer period for availing or changing of domicile from one category to another category. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (N)
  10. — domicile of choice — acquisition of — certain conditions required to be fulfilled — under law the person who seeks to obtain the domicile of choice has to prove that he has abandoned the domicile of origin. Further statutory provisions, require that the person who seeks to obtain domicile has to fulfill certain conditions necessary for issuance of certificate. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (L)
  11. — issuance of wrong and illegal domiciles — effects of — destroys and limits the genuine candidates of a respective unit Issuance of wrong and illegal state subjects or domicile and usage of same adversely affects the rights of persons who are entitled to quota in jobs of a functional unit and narrows the opportunities and wrongly increase the competition for the genuine candidates of respective functional unit. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (H)
  12. — kinds of domicile — prescribed — Domicile has been categorized as domicile of origin, domicile of choice as pronounced in the Qamar Afzal’s case and domicile of dependence-a minor or mentally incapacitated person carries with, upon whom they depend. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (C) PLD 1979 SC AJK 96. Rel.
  13. — domicile determines status and relations of domicile holder with the territory — nature and relation with a territory — Held: Domicile connects a man with a particular legal system of a territory determining his personal status, his rights and obligations emanating from that very territorial constitutional and legal system. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (D)
  14. — domicile — origin and importance of domicile — kinds and reasons of migration — The concept of ‘domicile’ is not a legal concept of an ordinary kind or importance rather its nature roots back to ancient times and customary laws and is of a fundamental nature. In the present world, more people tend to adopt economic and forced migration due to ease of travelling, availability of abundant information about social and economic opportunities in other lands, abruption of wars and law and order situations in resident lands. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (E)
  15. — domicile — scope and rights attached to domicile — [Domicile] determines one’s rights, obligations and legal implications in a particular state, province, territory or area with respect to permanent living, state sponsored education, acquisition and holding of land and property, government job, government pension, territorial or state incomes, payment of taxes, marriage, divorce, voting, interpretation of will, judicial jurisdiction and many other constitutional and legal rights and obligations also attached to status of domicile. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (F)
  16.  —‘domicile of choice’ and ‘domicile of origin — The term of Domicile of origin as well as the procedure for surrender of “domicile of origin” and adoption of “domicile of choice” have been defined. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (X) PLD 1979 SC AJK 96. Ref
  17. — without surrendering domicile of origin, obtaining of domicile of choice is illegal — Held: in presence of “domicile of origin” and without completing the procedure for abandonment of the “domicile of origin”, the act of adoption of “domicile of choice” on the part of Appellant is illegal. [Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (Y)
  18. — cancellation of certificate of domicile of origin — grant of certificate of domicile of choice — without cancellation of certificate of domicile of origin or choice, the domicile of other functional unit cannot be issued and may be issued only in case, continuous living for five years and further intention to live continually in future in the functional unit of choice is established — Non-adherence of governing law, not endorsed by Court — Held: Though, in this case the certificate of choice has not been issued by any authority in AJK, however, as pointed earlier, in many cases the authority issued the domicile of choice in absence of cancellation of domicile certificate of origin or vice versa, without adhering to the relevant law. When the law has provided in clear terms by this Court that without cancellation certificate of domicile of origin or choice, the domicile of other functional unit cannot be issued and may be issued only in case, continuous living for five years and further intention to live continually in future in the functional unit of choice is established. Reliance may be made to Beenish Bashir’s case (2014 SCR 327). The practice of changing of the domicile certificates for availing greener pastures in a manner alien to law cannot be appreciated and endorsed by the Courts. Sabeel Ahmed Chohan v. Iftikhar-ul-Hassan & others 2023 SCR 303 (NN) 2014 SCR 327. Rel
error: Content is protected !!