1989 PLP 1650 (CLC)
NASIM AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1650 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hassan, J |
| Parties | NASIM AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑, ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1650 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑, ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1650 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Akhtar Hassan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1650 (CLC) (NASIM AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Munir for Petitioner.
- Noor Muhammad Sheikh for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Wife can bring suit wherever she was presently residing even though temporarily‑‑Wife brought suit for dissolution of marriage against husband at place 'F earlier in time than the husband's suit against wife which was pending at place `L'‑‑Suit filed by husband at place `L' was transferred to Court at place 'F keeping in view convenience of wife. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the transference of the two cases on the grounds, firstly that the respondent is employed in Rangers at Khairpur and has nobody else here to look after the cases except his old father, who resides in Lahore, and secondly that under section 14 of the Guardians and Wards Act, it was not permissible to transfer the guardianship case unless there was filed an opposite case of similar nature in any other Court.
2. The contentions raised by the learned counsel do not have any substance. The wife has a little edge over the husband in the matter of litigation inasmuch as she can bring suits wherever she is presently residing even though it may be temporary residence. She brought a suit for dissolution of marriage at Faisalabad earlier in time and stated the suits brought by the respondent at Lahore were just reprisals. Her convenience has to be kept in view. Section 14 of the Guardians and Wards Act to have no application to the present case A Guardianship is one of the subject‑matter included in the Schedule II of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act of 1964 and, therefore, Section 25‑A of the said Act would apply in the matter of transference of cases relating to those subject matters. There is no such restriction in it as spelt out from Section 14 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The case can be transferred even in the absence of a rival case by or on behalf of the respondent.
3. The family cases re: (1) Muhammad Ramzan v. Nasim Akhtar, pending before Mr. Nawaz Ahmad Ghumman, Judge, Family Court, Lahore for 1‑2‑1989 B and (2) Muhammad Ramzan v. Nasim Akhtar, pending before Mr. Faiz Talib, Judge, Family Court, Lahore, for 2‑1‑1989, are withdrawn from their Courts and entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Yunus, Civil Judge/Judge. Family Court, Faisalabad, for 21‑1‑1989. Parties shall appear before the transferee Court on the said date. The records shall also be sent to it well in time. H.B.T/N‑186/L Suit transferred.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Muhammad Munir for Petitioner. Noor Muhammad Sheikh for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th December, 1988. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the transference of the two cases on the grounds, firstly that the respondent is employed in Rangers at Khairpur and has nobody else here to look after the cases except his old father, who resides in Lahore, and secondly that under section 14 of the Guardians and Wards Act, it was not permissible to transfer the guardianship case unless there was filed an opposite case of similar nature in any other Court.
2. The contentions raised by the learned counsel do not have any substance. The wife has a little edge over the husband in the matter of litigation inasmuch as she can bring suits wherever she is presently residing even though it may be temporary residence. She brought a suit for dissolution of marriage at Faisalabad earlier in time and stated the suits brought by the respondent at Lahore were just reprisals. Her convenience has to be kept in view. Section 14 of the Guardians and Wards Act to have no application to the present case A Guardianship is one of the subject‑matter included in the Schedule II of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act of 1964 and, therefore, Section 25‑A of the said Act would apply in the matter of transference of cases relating to those subject matters. There is no such restriction in it as spelt out from Section 14 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The case can be transferred even in the absence of a rival case by or on behalf of the respondent.
3. The family cases re: (1) Muhammad Ramzan v. Nasim Akhtar, pending before Mr. Nawaz Ahmad Ghumman, Judge, Family Court, Lahore for 1‑2‑1989 B and (2) Muhammad Ramzan v. Nasim Akhtar, pending before Mr. Faiz Talib, Judge, Family Court, Lahore, for 2‑1‑1989, are withdrawn from their Courts and entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Yunus, Civil Judge/Judge. Family Court, Faisalabad, for 21‑1‑1989. Parties shall appear before the transferee Court on the said date. The records shall also be sent to it well in time. H.B.T/N‑186/L Suit transferred.