Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUVI MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: MST. NASIM AKHTARHonorable Justice Muhammad Ilyas
1992 M L D 109
1992 M L D 109
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Ilyas, J
MUVI MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petition
Versus
Mst. Mst. NASIM AKHTAR‑‑‑‑‑Respondent
Transfer Application No. 584‑C of 1991, decided on 23rd September, 1991.
West Pakistan Family ON West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Transfer of family suit ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Transfer of family suit‑‑‑Wife's suit for was pending adjudication at G was pending adjudication at "G", while husband's suit from rights was pending at "M"‑‑‑Husband's prayer for tray "G" to "M" was on the ground that Court at "G" hat matter‑‑‑Question of jurisdiction, raised by husband determined after recording determined after recording evidence of parties‑‑‑Husband could agitate question of jurisdiction before the Court where wife's suit was pending and obtain finding thereon‑‑‑In the event of husband's success, wife's plaint in suit would be returned to her for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑‑Care should be taken of the convenience of female party rather than that of convenience of male party in the matter of transfer of suits‑‑ Husband's application for transfer of wife's suit from "G" to "M" was dismissed in circumstances.
Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Petitioner.
ORDER
Petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, has made this petition for transfer of a suit for dissolution of marriage, filed by his wife, Mst. Nasim Akhtar, in the Court of Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Ranjha, Judge, Family Court, Gujranwala. The petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before Mr. Hassan Mir, Judge, Family Court, Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din, District Gujrat. It has been prayed by the petitioner that the respondent's suit for dissolution of marriage may also be transferred to said Court at Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din.
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. The question of jurisdiction raised by him is to be judicially determined after recording evidence of the parties. I, therefore, cannot express any opinion in this regard 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, plaint in suit of the respondent shall be returned to her for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. There is plenty of case‑law on the point that in matrimonial cases more care should be taken of the convenience of the female party than that of the convenience of the male party. In the existing state of affairs, therefore, I would not like to oblige the respondent, who is a female, to go from Gujranwala to Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din every now and then, to deal with litigation between her and the petitioner, who is a male and is residing at Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din. Respondent's suit is, therefore, not transferred to Mandi Baha ud‑Din.
4. Resultantly, this petition fails. It is dismissed in limine.
AA./M‑23/1, Petition dismissed.