1983 PLP 3225 (CLC)

It is alleged that the respondent as a counterblast, has made the applica tion -for obtaining custody of the minor daughter Nausheen aged 3 years, the only issue out of the wedlock, before the Guardian Judge, Lahore. It is this application which is sought to be transferred through the present applica tion.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended: Firstly.-That the petitioner is a perdahnashin lady and it would be very difficult for her to travel from Faisalabad to Lahore on each date of hearing to defend herself in the application filed against her , at,. Lahore. Secondly.-That the case at Lahore has been initiated by the respondent only as a counterblast to the suit of the petitioner instituted against the respondent for dissolution of marriage ; and Lastly.-That the minor is admittedly residing with the petitioner at Faisalabad having been given in her custody by the respondent himself and as such there would be inconvenience and hazard to the health of the minor if she is made to come to Lahore in the case sought to be transferred.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent only contended that the minor daughter Nausheen was removed from Lahore and as such the jurisdiction only vests in the Lahore Court. He, however, admits that the minor is presently living at Faisalabad with the petitioner.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the state ments of the parties made before the learned Guardian Judge, Lahore on 9-2-19F2 in the application of the petitioner against the respondent for obtaining custody of the minor. The respondent in his statement has stated that he has reached a compromise with the petitioner under the said compromise he has handed over the minor to the petitioner:

6. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This being the admitted position the minor Nausheen is presently residing at Faisalabad and is in custody of her mother the balance of convenience is in favour of the trial of the case at Faisalabad inasmuch as in applications of this nature the A minor is frequently called, by the Court so that the parties could have .acres to the minor. Otherwise also no convenience would be caused to the respon dent if his case is transferred to Faisalabad as he has to go to Faisalabad defend himself to the suit instituted against him for dissolution of marriage.

7. In view of the foregoing, accepting this application I direct that the application under section 25 of the Guradians and Wards Act titled "Muhammad Jared v. Mst. Nazis alias Pashidu" pending before the Guardian Judge, Lahore be withdrawn from there and entrusted to the Guardian Judge, Faisalabad where the petitioner's suit against the respondent for dissolution of marriage is already pending, for adjudication in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Guardian Judge, Faisalabad can 9-3-1983. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The learned Court from which the case has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case transferred, reaches the learned transferee Court, well in advance of the date fixed above. The learned counsel. for the respondent has made a request that the Courts at Faisalabad who would be trying the suit for dissolution of marriage ,and the application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act which has been transferred by this judgment may be directed to give the same dates of hearing in the two cases. The request is genuine, both the Courts shall ensure that same dates of hearing are given in the two cases to avoid inconvenience to the respondent. M. A. K. Petition allowed,