1989 PLP 448 (MLD)
HASEENA MUMTAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 448 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | HASEENA MUMTAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 448 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 448 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khizar Hayat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 448 (MLD) (HASEENA MUMTAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Mumtaz Malik for Petitioner.
- Wasim Mumtaz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.24‑‑Transfer of case‑‑Parties wife and husband‑‑Wife instituting suit for dissolution of marriage in Court at M while husband instituting suit for restoration of conjugal rights in Court at L‑‑Wife praying that husband's suit filed in Court be transferred to Family Court at M where her suit for dissolution of marriage was pending disposal while husband praying transfer of wife's suit to a Family Court at L‑‑For transfer of each other's case, both parties taking common ground of being poor and unable to bear expenses of litigation at two places‑ Both parties having similar economic conditions‑‑To keep parties on even keel and to avoid conflicting judgments, suits filed by both parties ordered to be transferred to a Family Court at MG which place was at equal distance from M as well as from L which were places of residence of parties.
Judgment & Decree
This order shall dispose of two transfer applications, namely, No. 140‑C 88 and No. 24‑C‑89 which are connected matters.
2. The parties are husband and wife. Mst. Haseena Mumtaz petitioner through filing TA. No. 140‑C‑88 has prayed that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by Mushtaq, her husband, in the Court of Senior Civil Ridge/Judge Family Court, Layyah, may be transferred to Judge Family Court, Multan, where her suit for dissolution of marriage against said Mushtaq is pending. As a counterblast, Mushtaq Ahmad, petitioner through filing TA. No. 24‑C‑89 has prayed for the transfer of Mst. Haseena Mumtaz's case for dissolution of marriage to the Judge Family Court Layyah, where his suit for restitution of conjugal rights is pending.
3. Ground for transfer urged by the parties is common, i.e., they being poor are unable to bear expenses of litigation at two places. I have seen both the parties. They have similar economic conditions. Therefore, to keep them on even keel, I think it would be appropriate if their cases ale heard at a place which is equidistant from the place of residence of both parties. These cases should also be heard by one Court to avoid conflict of judgments. Muzaffargarh is a place which would be a convenient venue for them. Consequently, the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by Mushtaq is withdrawn from the Court of Judge Family Court, Layyah and likewise the suit of dissolution of marriage filed by Mst. Haseena Mumtaz is withdrawn from the Court of Judge Family Court, Multan and both of them are entrusted to Judge Family Court, Muzaffargarh for disposal in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs. M.Y.H./H‑106/L Order accordingly.