Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Transfer of suit, grounds for‑‑Wife instituted suit for dissolution of marriage against husband at place 'L' while respondent husband instituted suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife at place 'G'‑‑Wife sought transfer of husband's suit from place 'G' to place 'L' on grounds that marriage having taken place at 'L' and that in both two suits similar questions of law and fact would likely to arise and she being Pardanashin lady would feel great inconvenience to go to place 'G' to defend case against her on each date of hearing whereas no extra inconvenience would be suffered by husband since he in any case would have to come to place 'L to appear in suit filed against him by her‑‑Such grounds, held, were valid for transfer of husband's suit from place 'G' to place 'L' where wife's suit for dissolution of marriage was pending against husband.

Sh. Abdul Sattar Zahid for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th October, 1986.

This petition under section 25‑A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 seeks transfer of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Naghma Bibi from the Court of Mr. Mumtaz Munawar Niazi, Judge Family Court, Gujrat to the Court of Mr. Ali Dastgir Syed, Judge Family Court, Lahore before whom the petitioners' suit against the respondent for dissolution of marriage is pending.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was married with the respondent at Lahore to which place she had to revert after falling out with the respondent and had, therefore, instituted the suit for dissolution of marriage before the Judge Family Court, Lahore, but the respondent in order to harass the petitioner has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights at Gujrat.

3. The learned counsel further contends that in the two suits similar questions of law and facts are likely to arise and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings that the two suits are tried by one and the same Court.

4. The learned counsel has lastly contended that Mst. Naghma Bibi is a Pardanashin Lady and it will be highly inconvenient for her to go to Gujrat on each date of hearing to defend herself there, whereas no extra inconvenience will be suffered by the respondent if his case is transferred to Lahore since he in any case has to come to Lahore to appear in the suit filed against him, by the petitioners, he has filed no transfer application for the transfer of the said suit.

5. The respondent has not appeared to contest this petition and has been proceeded against ex parte.

6. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are going unrebutted. Otherwise also the contentions raised have force and find support from the precedent case law on the subject of transfer of cases arising under the Family Courts Act.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, allowing this petition I direct that suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Naghma Bibi pending in the Court of Mr. Mumtaz Munawar Niazi, Judge Family Court Gujrat be withdrawn from that Court and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Ali Dastgir Syed, Judge Family Court, Lahore for adjudication in accordance with law.

8. Since the respondent has not appeared to contest this petition, there will be no order as to costs.

9. Parties shall appear before the transferee Court in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights as well on 27‑10‑1986 the date already fixed in the suit for dissolution of marriage.

10. The Court at Gujrat 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.

11. The transferee Court shall also ensure that the two suits are fixed on the same dates of hearing so that no extra inconvenience is caused to the respondent.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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