Find a Lawyer

Transfer Application No. 88/C of 1983, decided on 10th April, 1983.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Transfer of suit‑Suits for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights between same parties, held, to be tried by one and same Court to avoid conflict of judgments and multi plicity of proceedings‑‑Best place for adjudication of such suit being place where wife instituted suit and where marriage of parties performed‑‑Fact that suit for restitution of conjugal rights by husband earlier in time, held further, no hurdle in way of transfer of his case for trial at place where wife subsequently instituted suit for dissolution of marriage‑Application of wife for transfer of husband's suit to her place of filing suit, accepted.

Mukhtar Sultana v. Tasadaq (Tasaduq Hussain) P L D 1979 Lah. 34 and Mst. Mah Jabeen v. Ghulam Qadir 1982 C L C 2027 rel.

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 10th April, 1983.

This is a petition under section 25‑A of the Family‑ Courts Act (in fact W.P. Family Courts Act, 1964) for transfer of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Mian Muhammad Siddique Javed v. Yasmin Anjum from the Court of Sh. Muhammad Yousaf, Judge Family Court, Faisalabad to the Court of Mr. Nur Muhammad, (now Rana Muhammad Shafi) Judge, Family Court, Veltari.

The facts necessary for the purposes of this petition; briefly stated, are that the petitioner has instituted three suits against respondent, one for dissolution of marriage, second for recovery of dower, and the third for maintenance, the former of which is pending now before Rana Muhammad Shafi, Judge Family Court, Vehari whilst the latter two are pending before Sh. Muhammad Ilahi, Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Vehari.

The respondent, on the other hand, has filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending before Sh. Muhammad Yousaf, Judge Family Court, Faisalabad. The suit of the respondent was filed earlier than the suits of the petitioner. The marriage of the parties was admitted ly performed on 7the April, 1978 in Vehari.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended‑

firrst : that common questions of law and fact are involved in the suits for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights and as such it would be convenient for the parties that the two suits are tried by one and the same Court and further that this would also avoid conflict of judgments ;

secondly, that the petitioner is a pardahnashin lady and after separation having been forced to live at Vehari is not in a position to defend herself effectively at Faisalabad especially when the respondent has not maintained her for a long period ; and

lastly, that the respondent has extended threats to the petitioner of bodily harm if she goes to Faisalabad to defend herself there.

4. On the other hand, the respondent has only submitted that his suit is earlier than the suits of the petitioner and, therefore, there is no occasion for the transfer of his case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply submitted that the filing of the suit earlier in time by the respondent is no hurdle in the way of transfer of that suit to Vehari as has been held in Mukhtar Sultana v, Tasadaq (Tasaduq Hussain) (P L D 1979 Lah 34) and Mst. Mah Jabeen v. Ghulam Qadir (1982 C L C 2027).

6. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I find that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have force. It is well settled that suits for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights between the same parties should be better tried by one and the same Court as it not only avoids conflict of judgments but also is helpful avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The best place for adjudication o such suits has also been held by judicial precedent as the place where the wife has instituted the suit and, moreso, when the place where the wife has instituted the suit is the tine where the marriage of the parties had been performed. In the afore‑cited judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has also been held that the filing, of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent earlier in time is no hurdle in the way of transfer of his case for trial at the place where the wife subsequently, instituted the suit for dissolution of marriage.

The additional factor which ha: persuaded me to accept this petition is that there are three suits of the petitioner instituted at Vehari and the respondent has not moved for transfer of any one of those cases and, therefore, will in any case go to Vehari to defend himself. The transfer of his case to Vehari will thus cause him no extra inconvenience.

7. In view of the foregoing accepting this petition I direct that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Mian Muhammad Siddique Javed v. Yasmin Anjum be withdrawn from the Court of Sh. Muhammad Yousaf, Judge Family Court, Faisalabad and entrusted to the Court of Rana Muhammad Shafi, Judge Family Court, Vehari, for adjudication i 'n

accordance with law.

There will, however, be no order as to costs.

8. The respondent states that in the suit for dissolution of marriage the next date fixed is 4th May, 1983. The parties shall appear before the transferee Court at Vehari, in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights as well, on the said date.

9. The Court at Faisalabad from which the suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case is transmitted to the transferee Court well in advance of the date fixed above.

10. At this stage, I enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any objection if the suits for recovery of dower and maintenance are withdrawn from the Court of Sh. Muhammad flabi, Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Vehari and entrusted to Rana Muhammad Shafi, Judge Family Court, Vehari so that the total controversies between the parties are before one and the same Court.

The learned counsel very candidly conceded that withdrawal of the two aforementioned cases of the petitioner from the Court of Sh. Muhammad Ilahi, Judge Family Court, Vehari and entrustment thereof to the Court of Rana Muhammad Shafi, Judge Family Court, Vehari would be extremely conducive to the ends of justice and fair to all the parties concerned.

Accordingly I also direct that the two suits of the petitioner, one for recovery of dower and the other for maintenance pending before Sh. Muhammad llahi, Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Vehari be withdrawn from his Court and entrusted to the Court of Rana Muhammad Shafi, Judge Family Court, Vehari, for adjudication in accor dance with law.

The learned transferee Court (Rana Muhammad Shafi, Judge Family Court, Vehari) shall consider the desirability of consolidation/trial to gether of the suits for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights. In any case the same dates of hearing shall be fixed in all t4e four suits between the parties to avoid inconvenience to the respondent who has to come from Faisalabad.

M. Y. H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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