2006 PLP 929 (YLR)
Mst. KANEEZ BIBI — Applicant Versus MUKHTAR AHMED — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 929 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | Mst. KANEEZ BIBI — Applicant Versus MUKHTAR AHMED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 929 (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 2006 PLP 929 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 929 (YLR) (Mst. KANEEZ BIBI — Applicant Versus MUKHTAR AHMED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.25-A
Application for transfer of suit
Applicant had sought transfer of respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending in Court at place 'V' to Court at place 'Al' where applicant's suit for maintenance allowance, was pending
Applicant was a female and law normally leaned in favour of women-folk-Rule of convenience and propriety demanded that both matters be decided by one and the same Court
Respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending in Court at place 'V' was transferred to Court at place 'M' where applicant's suit for maintenance allowance was pending, so that both suits be heard and tried together. Rana Amjad Mehmood for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.--Through this application, applicant seeks transfer of respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled, "Muhammad Mukhtar v. Mst. Kaneezan Bibi" pending in the Court of Mr. Sana Khan Atiq, Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Vehari to the Court of Mr. Yasin Mohal, Judge Family Court, Multan where applicant's suits for maintenance allowance titled, "Mst. Kaneezan Bibi v. Mukhtar Ahmed" is pending.
2. Respondent refused to accept the notice for today's hearing, hence, he is proceeded against ex parte.
3. Applicant is a female and law normally leans in favour of women-folk. Furthermore, rule of convenience and propriety demands that both the aforesaid matters be decided by one and the same Court.
4. In view of the above, this application is allowed and respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled, "Muhammad Mukhtar v. Mst. Kaneez Bibi" pending in the Court of Mr. Sana Khan Atiq, Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Vehari is transferred to the Court of Mr. Yasin Mohal, Judge Family Court, Multan where applicant's suit for maintenance allowance is pending, so that both the above said suits be heard and tried together. H.B.T./K-143/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Suit transferred.