2010 PLP 2568 (YLR)
KASHIF MERAJ — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2568 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, C. J. |
| Parties | KASHIF MERAJ — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2568 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 2568 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, C. J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2568 (YLR) (KASHIF MERAJ — Petitioner Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Munir for Petitioner.
- Liaquat Ali Cheema, for Respondent.
- Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. Advocate-General with Shaukat Ali S.-I. for Respondent.
- 3. Learned Additional Advocate-General after getting instructions from S.-I. present in Court submits that he has gone to the house of respondent No.2 but she was not available and he was informed by the inmates of the house that respondent in order to earn her livelihood is residing at Muridkey.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 5, Sched. & 25-A
Application for
Suit for recovery of dowry filed by female in court at place was sought to be transferred in court at place `L'
Convenience of ladies should be seen first
Place where suit filed by the female was pending hardly was at a distance of 15 K.M. from the court at place case for transfer having been made out, transfer application was dismissed and suit filed by female would be heard and decided in court at place 'F'.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.
In continuation of my order, dated 18-5-2010, learned counsel for the petitioner adds that he has placed on record a certificate of Secretary Union Council concerned; that respondent No.2 is residing with her parents at Lahore; that in order to cause inconvenience to the petitioner she has filed suit for recovery of dowry at Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura and according to Muslim Family Law the suit must be heard and decided at Lahore where the respondent is residing.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that convenience of the lady is to be seen; that petitioner after giving physical torture to the respondent turned out her from his house, thereafter, she lives in the house of her parents where petitioner gives her threats of dire consequences and in order to earn her livelihood she shifted her residence at Muridkey and filed suit at Tehsil Ferozewala.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General after getting instructions from S.-I. present in Court submits that he has gone to the house of respondent No.2 but she was not available and he was informed by the inmates of the house that respondent in order to earn her livelihood is residing at Muridkey.
4. Heard respondent is a woman and there are so many judgments that convenience of ladies should have been seen first and moreover, Tehsil Ferozewala is hardly at a distance of 15 K.Ms. from "Awan-e-Addal", Lahore. Report of S.-I. present in Court also shows that respondent in order to earn her livelihood lives in Muridkay, District Sheikhpura.
5. In this view of the matter, no case for transfer is made out; therefore, this petition is dismissed and the suit filed by the respondent shall be heard and decided at Tehsil Ferozwala. H.B.T./K-40/L Application dismissed.