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. 361/C of 1986, decided on 11th November, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Transfer of suit‑‑Wife's suit for jactitation of marriage pending against husband at place 'N'‑‑Husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife pending at place 'B'‑‑Wife apprehended danger to her life and great inconvenience in case she pursued suit filed by husband against her at place 'B'‑‑In order to avoid likelihood of two contradictory decrees, two suits, held, should be tried by one and same Court and if there was any dispute regarding residence of wife, such question should also be determined by Family Courts in due course‑‑Suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending at place 'B' was ordered to be transferred to place 'N' where wife's suit against husband was pending.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.
Miss Fakkur‑un‑Nisa for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th November, 1986.
The petitioner has sought the transfer of a suit instituted by the respondent entitled Mukhtar Ahmad v. Mst. Kishwar Bibi for the restitution of conjugal rights pending with the Family Court at Bhakkar (the name of the Presiding Officer is not given to the Family Court at Nankana Sahib District Sheikhupura (the name of the Presiding Officer is not given) where a suit entitled Mst. Kishwar Bibi v. Mukhtar Ahmad filed by the petitioner for jactitation of marriage is pending on the grounds that the petitioner who is 14 years and 3 months old apprehends danger to her life in case she pursues the suit filed by the respondent there at Bhakkar, that she will have to face great inconvenience in attending the case at Bhakkar, the respondent had filed the suit only to harass the petitioner.
2. The petition so made has been resisted by the respondent mainly on the ground that the suit for jactitation of marriage could not be institued in the Family Court at Nankana Sahib because the petitioner was residing in Karachi with her father, the marriage was solemnized at Mianwali against which the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is permanently resident of Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed a copy of the statement of the father of the petitioner having been made in a criminal case against the respondent and others under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 363, P.P.C. wherein the father of the petitioner has stated that he is resident of Karachi.
3. The question so raised is primarily for the Family Court to determine in due course. For the time being, it is sufficient to note that in the statement of Muhammad Sadiq, the father of the petitioner, relied upon by the respondent, he is shown as resident of Nankana Sahib District Sheikhupura.
4. The suit instituted by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court Nankana Sahib District Sheikhupura which is seized of the suit filed by the petitioner, for the reasons that as a mater of course such suits are tried by one Court in order to avoid the likelihood of two contradictory decrees coming into existence and secondly the respondent who Is to derend himself in the suit filed by the petitioner Can pursue his own suit thereto without much of inconvenience.
H.B.T./711/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