1992 PLP 1301 (CLC)
Mst. SHAMIM BIBI alias SHEEMA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RASHID AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1301 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, Actg. CJ. |
| Parties | Mst. SHAMIM BIBI alias SHEEMA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RASHID AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1301 (CLC)?
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 1992 PLP 1301 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, Actg. CJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1301 (CLC) (Mst. SHAMIM BIBI alias SHEEMA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RASHID AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Zahid Khan for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Transfer of family suit‑‑‑Wife's suit for dissolution (if marriage and husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending in respective Family Courts at "OKA" and at "SL"‑‑‑Wife's application for transfer of husband's suit from Family Court at SL to Family Courts at "OKA" where her own suit was pending adjudication‑‑‑Nature of two suits was such that common questions of law and facts were likely to arise therein‑‑‑Conflicting findings on such questions could be avoided if both suits were heard and decided by one and same Court‑‑‑Parties would also be able to save expenses by appearing in one instead of two Courts at different places‑‑‑Wife being a female was likely to apprehend harm at the hands of husband in the event of her going to "SL" to defend suit brought against her and thus deserved to be accommodated in preference to husband‑‑‑Husband's suit pending at "SL" was transferred to "OKA" to be heard with wife's suit for dissolution of marriage.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Muhammad Zahid Khan for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1992. Mst. Shamim Bibi alias Sheema is wife of the respondent, Rashid Ahmad. She has made this petition for transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending in the Court of Mr. Azhar Hussain Gardezi, Judge, Family Court, Sahiwal, which has been brought against her by the respondent. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, against the ,respondent, which is being heard by Mr. Zawar Ahmad, Judge, Family Court, Okara. The petitioner has prayed that the respondent's suit may also be transferred to the said Court at Okara.
2. In view of the nature of the said two suits common questions of law and fact are likely to arise therein. Conflicting findings on such questions can be avoided if both the suits are heard and decided by one and the same Court. Besides, if the two suits are allowed to be tried by the Courts now seized of them, the petitioner will have to go to Sahiwal to defend the suit brought by the respondent arid the latter will have to visit Okara to resist the suit instituted by the former. It is, therefore, my desire that one of the parties should be saved of the bother and expense to which she/he would be put for going .to a place other than the place of her/his residence to contest the suit against her/him. Which of the two parties should be helped in this regard is the question which now falls for consideration. Since the petitioner is a female but the respondent is a male, and she also apprehends harm at the hands of the respondent in the event of her going to Sahiwal to defend the suit brought against her, I feel that she deserves to be accommodated in preference to the respondent. Accordingly, I accept this petition and transfer the respondent's suit from the said Family Court of Sahiwal to the Family Court of Okara, which is trying the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage. There shall be no order as to costs. A.A./S‑98/L Application accepted.