Find a Lawyer

Transfer Application No. 174 of 1979, decided on 1st October 1979.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Transfer of cases‑Both husband and wife instituting separate suits at O and R respectively and filing applications for transfer of each other's suit to their own place of institution‑Husband owning a bungalow at G and well‑to‑do businessman but wife a teachress at R having to provide maintenance for herself and children‑Husband's suit transferred to R in circumstances.‑[Transfer of cases].

Iqbal Begum v. Abdul Hamid P L D 1978 Lah. 993 (2) and Rauf Ahmad v. Razia Farhat P L D 1971 Kar. 897 ref.

Syed Najmul Hassan Kazmi for Petitioner.

Mian Mohiuddin Ahmad for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 1st October 1979.

This order will dispose of four Transfer Applications No. 174/C/79, No. 302/C/79, No. 239/C/79 and No. 240/C/79. Out of these Transfer Applications No. 174/C/79 and No. 302/C/79 have been filed by Mst. Irfana Pal against Javed Akhtar whereas Javed Akhtar has filed Transfer Application No. 239/C/79 and Tranfer Application No. 240/C/79 against Mst. Irfana Pal. Javed Akhtar is the husband of Mst. Irfana Pal and since July,l977 there had been a separation between the spouses and two sons were born out of the wedlock who are in the custody of Mst. Irfana Pal.

2. Javed Akhtar the applicant in Transfer Application No. 239/C/79 prays for the recovery of dower amount of Rs. 5,000 fled by Mst. Irfana Pal at Rawalpindi. He also seeks transfer of the maintenance suit filed by Mst. Irfana Pal against Javed Akhtar for the past maintenance as well as the future maintenance of herself and the two minor sons. On the contrary, Mst. Irfana Pal under application No. Transfer Application No. 174/C/79 seeks transfer of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by Javed Akhtar against her at Gujranwala and also under Transfer Application 302/C/79 seeks transfer of the application for the custody of minors filed by Javed Akhtar at Gujranwala. The two applications filed by Mst. Irfana Pal are earlier in time though the two suits filed by Javed Akhtar were filed earlier.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for Javed Akhtar petitioner in Transfer Application No. 239/C/79 and Transfer Application No. 240/C/79. The learned counsel for Javed Akhtar submits that he apprehends that in case he goes to Rawalpindi to prosecute the cases filed by Mst. Irfana Pal he would not be safe as per his averments in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his petitions. The learned counsel also relies on a case reported as 1gbal Begum v. Abdul Hamid (P L D 1978 Lah. 993(2)) and further submits that the two suits filed by Javed Akhtar were earlier in time and that the proceedings initiated by Mst. Irfana Pal just a counter‑blast. On my enquiry the learned counsel for Javed Akhtar pointed out that his client was a businessman and owned a bungalow at Gujranwala and seems to be a well‑to‑do person. On the other hand Mst. Irfana Pal his wife after desertion had to take a job of teachress at Rawalpindi and it is reported that she had to do so because allegedly Javed Akhtar had not provided any maintenance either to his wife or the children since their separation in July, 1977. Javed Akhtar as already stated above has filed a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights and for the custody of minors at Gujranwala and thereafter Mst. Irfana Pal filed a suit for the recovery of dower and for maintenancy subsequently at Rawalpindi. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the two transfer applications filed by Javed Akhtar the allegations of the apprehension of danger to life were just the repetition of allegations contained in the two applications filed by Mst. Irfana Pal were counterblast.

4. I have considered the respective merits of the applications for transfer, and I am of the view that the cases filed by Javed Akbtar at Gujranwala be transferred to a competent Courts at Rawalpindi and there is no justification for the transfer of the cases filed by Mst. Jrfana Pal to Gujranwala.

5. Even the Judgment cited by the learned counsel for Javed Akhtar reported as Iqbal Begum v. Abdul Hamid the cases have been transferred keeping in view the convenience of the wife and the learned counsel for Mst. Irfana Pal has also relied on Rauf Ahmad v. Razia Farhat (P L D 1971 Kar. 897) wherein also the convenience of the wife was the dominant factor. The suit for conjugal rights can conveniently be disposed of along with the suit for dissolution of marriage and similarly the question of custody of the minors would also be appropriately disposed of at Rawalpindi where at present the minors are residing along with their mother.

6. As already indicated above Javed Akhtar seems to be a well‑to‑d person and on the contrary Mst. Irfana Pal, is serving as a teachress ostensibly to provide maintenance for herself and for her children. Keeping in view the above consideration also the transfer applications by Javed Akhtar being Transfer Application No. 239/C/79 and Transfer Application 240/C/79 are hereby dismissed while the Transfer Applications Nos. 174/C/1979 and 302/C of 1979 filed by Mst. Irfana Pal succeed. The net result is that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by Javed Akhtar shall stand transferred to a competent Court at Rawalpindi and also the petition for the custody of the minors. The learned District Judge, Rawalpindi shall entrust these cases to competent Courts preferably where other matters are pending adjudication. There will be no orders as to costs in any of the petitions. Any observation made in this order shall not pre judice the trial of the suits and applications referred to above.

M. Y. H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.