Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Transfer Application No. 371‑C of 1986, decided on 20th October, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Transfer of suit‑‑Suit for dissolution of marriage filed prior in time by petitioner wife at place 'G' was dismissed for non‑prosecution and wife filed fresh suit‑‑Respondent husband filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife at place 'D'‑‑Petitioner wife pleading danger to her life and inconvenience on her going to defend suit for restitution of conjugal rights at place 'D'‑‑Suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending against wife at place 'D' was transferred to place 'G' where wife's suit for dissolution of marriage was pending.
Khurshid Anwar Bhinder for Petitioner.
Respondent: Ex parte.
Date of hearing: 20th October, 1986.
This petition under section 25‑A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, seek the transfer of the suit titled Muhammad Razzak v. Safia Bibi from the Court of Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Judge Family Court, Daska, District Sialkot, to the Court of Mr. Ahmad Farooq, Judge Family Couri:, Gujranwala, with whom the suit for dissolution of marriage is pending
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage against the respondent on 13‑2‑1985 and the respondent as a counterblast instituted the suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 22‑5‑1985, but unfortunately the suit of the petitioner for dissolution of marriage was dismissed for non‑prosecution whereupon, she filed a fresh suit on 18‑11‑1985. He contends that it the suit of the respondent is only a counterblast intended to cause harassment to the petitioner. The learned counsel next contends that the petitioner apprehends danger to her life if she goes to defend herself at Daska whereas no such danger is possibly comprehensible by the respondent.
3. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being a woman will be put to greater inconvenience if she is made to go to Daska whereas the respondent will suffer no inconvenience as he, in any case, will have to come to Gujranwala to defend himself in the suit against him, he having filed no transfer application for seeking transfer of the suit of the petitioner.
4. No one has appeared for the respondent to defend this petition and, therefore, he has been proceeded against ex parte.
5. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are, therefore, going unrebutted and these otherwise also find support from the precedent case‑law on the subject of transfer of case arising under the Family Courts Act.
6. In view of the foregoing allowing this petition, I direct that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Muhammad Razzak v. Mst. Safia Bibi be withdrawn from the Court of Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Judge Family Court, Daska, District Sialkot, and entrusted to the Court of Mr Ahmad Farook, Judge Family Court, Gujranwala, for adjudication) in accordance with law. Since the respondent has not appeared to this petition, there will be no order as to costs.
7. The parties shall appear before the transferee Court on 8‑11‑1986. The Court at Daska from which the suit has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case reaches the transferee Court well in advance of the date fixed above.
8 The transferee Court shall also ensure that in future, the two cases between the parties are fixed on the same date of hearing so that the respondent is not put to any extra inconvenience.
H.B.T./715/L Suit transferred
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer