1992 PLP 114 (MLD)

Transfer Application No.590‑C of 1991, decided on 24th September, 1991. ‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Transfer of family suit‑‑‑Wife's suit for custody of minor children pending in Court at "S"‑‑‑Husband's application for transfer of wife's suit from "S" to "F", where he himself was residing alongwith minors on the ground that there being family enmity between the parties, he apprehended harm in the event of his going to "S" to resist the application for custody of minors‑‑‑Same grievance was likely to be voiced by wife if application for custody of children was transferred to "F", and in case of her so doing, there would be more force in her plea than in that of the petitioner for wife was a female‑‑‑Convenience of female party would outweigh that of male party‑‑‑Presence of minors at "F" would make little difference because matter was to be prosecuted by parties and not by minors‑‑‑Petitioner husband if apprehended any physical harm to himself or to minors, he could take security proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code, against wife and her supporters, if any‑‑‑Transfer of case was declined in circumstances. Ch. Khalid Anwar for Petitioner. One Abdul Ahad Tahir had made this petition for transfer of an application made by the respondent, Mst. Rashida Parveen, under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1925, for the custody of minors, who are their children, and are presently residing with the petitioner (Abdul Ahad Tahir). He lives in Faisalabad while the respondent resides in Sialkot. She had filed the said application before the Guardian Judge (Senior Civil Judge), Sialkot. Petitioner has prayed that the same may be transferred to Faisalabad.

2. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since there is enmity between the parties, the petitioner apprehends harm in the event of his going to Sialkot to resist the application. The same grievance is likely to be voiced by the respondent if the application is transferred to Faisalabad, and in case of her so doing, there will be more force in her plea than in that of the petitioner because the respondent is a female while the petitioner is a male. There is also plenty of case‑law on the point that in disputes like the one between the parties before me, convenience of the female party outweighs that of the male party. Presence of the minors at Faisalabad would make little difference because the matter is to be prosecuted by the parties and not by the; minors. They may be required to appear before the said Court on one occasion only if the Court decides to find out their wishes. If the petitioner apprehends any physical harm to him or to the minors he can take out security proceedings, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the respondent and her supporters, if any.

3. In view of what has gone above, I am not inclined to transfer respondent's case and dismiss this petition in limine. AA./A‑3/L Application dismissed.