Find a Lawyer

Transfer Application No. 337/C of 1986, heard on 26th October, 1986.

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Transfer of family suit‑‑Wife's suit for dissolution of marriage pending in Family Court at place S whereas husband's suit pending at Family Court at place P‑‑Certificates of residence produced by both parties establishing that wife was not residing within jurisdiction of Court at place P where suit of husband was pending‑‑High Court ordered case against wife to be transferred from Court at P to Court at S where wife's suit for dissolution of marriage was pending.

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Transfer of family suit‑‑Production of residence certificates, relevancy of‑‑Production of residence certificates issued by Chairmen Union Councils, held, would be for purposes of prima facie showing whether case sought to be transferred was liable to be transferred or not‑‑Such certificates would have no effect on determination by a Court as to its jurisdiction to try a suit.

Muhammad Akbar Cheema for Petitioner.

Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 30th June and 26th October, 1986.

This petition under section 25‑A of the Family Courts Act seeks transfer of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Barkat Ali v. Mst. Bavi from the Court of Mr. Waheed Aslam Maan, Judge Family Court, Pasroor, District Sialkot, to the Court of Mehr Muhammad Nawaz, Judge Family Court, Sheikhupura, before whom the petitioner's suit against the respondent for dissolution of marriage is pending.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the two suits there is likely to arise common questions of facts and law and as such the trial of the two suits by one and the same Court is called for in the interest of justice and to avoid conflict of judgments.

Secondly, that the petitioner is a Pardahnashin lady and as such will be put to a greater inconvenience if she has to contest the suit at Pasroor as against' the respondent who has, in any case, to come to Sheikhupura to defend himself in the suit filed against him as he has not filed any application seeking transfer of the suit of the petitioner.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the seeking of transfer of the suit from Pasroor to Sheikhupura is not bona fide in that the petitioner is not residing in the territorial jurisdiction of the Judge, Family Court, Sheikhupura.

The learned counsel in this regard has placed on record a certification from the Chairman, Union Council, Barki, District Lahore.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has, in reply, placed on record today a certification from the Chairman of the Union Council, Kot Ranjit, District Sheikhupura, showing that the petitioner is residing in village Mandiali, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura.

I have given consideration to the controversy involved and find that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have force and find support from the precedent case‑law on the subject of transfer of suits arising under the Family Courts Act.

As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, I suffice by observing that even by the certificate produced, by the respondent it is established that the petitioner had shifted from Pasroor and there is thus no justification to continue with, the suit in District Sialkot.

In view of the foregoing allowing this petition I direct that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Barkat Ali v. Mst. Bavi be withdrawn from the Court of Mr. Waheed Aslam Maan, Judge Family Court, Pasroor, District Sialkot, and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Mehr Muhammad Nawaz, Judge Family Court, Sheikhupura, for adjudication in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

The parties shall appear before the Judge Family Court, Sheikhupura, on 25‑11‑1986 in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights as well. The Court at Pasroor from which the case has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case reaches the transferee Court well in advance of the date fixed above.

The transferee Court is also directed to ensure that the two suits are fixed on the same date of hearing to avoid inconvenience to the respondent.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the production of certifications by the parties before this Court should not be allowed to be taken into consideration as a decisive factor in determining the jurisdiction of the Court if an objection to that effect is raised. It is obvious that the production of certificates here is only for the purposes of prima facie showing whether the case sought to be transferred is liable to be transferred or not and obviously will have no effect on the effective determination by a Court as to its jurisdiction to try a suit for otherwise.

A. A. Case transferred.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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