1989 PLP 949 (MLD)
KHUDEJA TUL KUBRA‑‑Applicant Versus ABID BUTT‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 949 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | KHUDEJA TUL KUBRA‑‑Applicant Versus ABID BUTT‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (IOCXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 949 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (IOCXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 949 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 949 (MLD) (KHUDEJA TUL KUBRA‑‑Applicant Versus ABID BUTT‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Transfer of family suit‑‑Suit sought to be transferred by wife pending in Court at `K'‑‑Wife's suit for recovery of maintenance pending in Court at 'L'‑-- Wife had expressed apprehension of suffering physical harm in case she had to go `K' to defend the suit‑‑Suit deserved to be tried in one Court to avoid possibilities of conflict on their decisions as common questions of law and fact were likely to arise‑‑Convenience of a lady litigant being the only determining factor in such cases, suits of parties should be decided by Court at `L'‑‑Husbands suit was, therefore, withdrawn from Court at `K' and entrusted to Court at `L', where wife's suit was pending. Ch. Muhammad Arshad for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. This application, under section 25‑A of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964, has been filed by Mst. Khudeja‑Tul‑Kubra for transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rihgts filed by the respondent Abid Butt, now pending before Mr. Abid Hussain Qureshi, Family Judge, Kharian.
2. Parties were married quite sometime before but have developed strained relations. They are now arrayed against each other in litigation. She has sued out the respondent for recovery of maintenance. Her suit is stated to be now being dealt with by Mr. Khalid Mahmood, Family Judge, Lahore.
3. Processes twice issued herein, for service of the respondent at the same address which is given in his plaint dated 14th March, 1988, have been received back with the report that he is living abroad. Any other address for his service is not known. It is not acceptable that if he could at all be serious then he may have abandoned the litigation to his mere pleasure without even leaving his latest address on the record. The report does not appear to be correct. Not long after the institution of his suit, proceedings in the trial Court were stayed by the order dated 13th August, 1988. He cannot be unaware of the pendency of this application. It is not possible to sit in wait for him. It can be that he may not be serious about this proceeding and is only adopting dilatory tactics. If at all he could be serious in opposing the plea made herein then he would have taken timely steps for safe‑guarding his interest, if any, in the dispute but he has not done so. It appears that he is not minded to contest the prayer for transfer. In the circumstances, this application has been heard ex parte against him.
4. Applicant prays for the suit of the respondent being transferred from Kharian to Lahore on the ground that it will not be convenient for her to attend to the litigation at two different stations. She has also expressed the apprehension of having to suffer physical harm in going there to defend the suit. Since common questions of law and fact are likely to arise in the respective suits of the parties, therefore, for avoiding the possibility of conflicqqt in their decisions, they deserve to be tried in one Court. Convenience of a lady‑litigant being the only determining factor in such cases, it is obvious that the suits of the parties should A be determined by the Court at Lahore. Suit of the respondent is, therefore, withdrawn from the Court concerned and is entrusted to Mr. Khalid Mahmood, Family Judge, Lahore with whom her suit is already pending, so that the same may also be tried by him, if not consolidated with her suit, at least on the same dates and both the suits are decided simultaneously.
5. Learned Judge at Kharian will forthwith remit the file of the relevant suit directly to learned transferee Judge at Lahore who will fix both the suits for a date convenient to himself and will proceed to try them, as directed above.
6. This application is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. A.A./‑K‑138/LTransfer application allowed.