Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAZIR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: MST. SHAZIA PARVEENHonorable Justice Muhammad Ilyas
1992 M L D 132
1992 M L D 132
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Ilyas, J
NAZIR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
Mst. SHAZIA PARVEEN‑‑‑Respondent
Transfer Application No.587‑C of 1991, decided on 23rd September, 1991.
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Transfer of family suit‑‑‑Wife's suit for dissolution of marriage and husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending in same Court at "S"‑‑ Husband's application, for transfer of suit at "N" on ground that wife did not reside within local limits of Court which was seized of her suit and thus, said Court had no jurisdiction‑‑‑Husband claimed that he himself had filed suit at "S" because wife's suit was also pending there‑‑‑Husband having himself submitted to the jurisdiction of Court at `S' such fact even if overlooked, question of jurisdiction raised by him was to be judicially decided after recording evidence of parties‑‑‑Husband could agitate question of jurisdiction before the Court in which wife's suit was pending and obtain finding thereon‑‑ In the event of husband's success on point of jurisdiction, his plaint in suit would be returned to him as also wife's plaint would be returned to her for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑‑Care should be taken of the convenience of female rather than a male while deciding question of transfer of suit‑‑‑Wife's suit pending at "S" was declined to be transferred at "N" in circumstances.
Taki Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, Nazir Hussain, has made this petition for transfer of a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by his wife, Mst. Shazia Parveen, in the Court of Sardar Muhammad Rana, Judge, Family Court, Sialkot. The petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights is also pending before the same Court. According to the petitioner, he filed his suit at Sialkot simply for the reason that the respondent's suit was pending there. It has been prayed by the petitioner that the two suits may be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Narowal.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent did not reside within the local limits of the Court which is seized of her suit for dissolution of marriage and, therefore, the said Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. It is, however, noteworthy that the petitioner has himself submitted to the jurisdiction of the said Court at Sialkot by filing before it his suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Even if this fact is overlooked, the question of jurisdiction raised by him is to be judicially decided after recording evidence of the parties. I, therefore, cannot express any opinion while dealing with this petition for transfer of the case. If the petitioner is serious in agitating the question of jurisdiction he should do so before the Court in which the respondent's suit is pending and obtain a finding thereon. Needless to say that if the finding is recorded in favour of the petitioner, the plaint in the suit shall be returned to him for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. As things stand at present, more care is to be taken of the convenience of the respondent, who is a female, than that of the petitioner, who is a male. I would, therefore, not like to transfer the respondent's suit from Sialkot in the existing state of affairs.
4. Resultantly, this petition fails. It is dismissed in limine.
AA./N‑6/L Application dismissed.