1986 PLP 2105 (MLD)
Mst. MUSSARAT BIBI‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2105 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Mahboob Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Mst. MUSSARAT BIBI‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2105 (MLD)?
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 1986 PLP 2105 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Mahboob Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2105 (MLD) (Mst. MUSSARAT BIBI‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Iftikhar Shah for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Transfer of suit‑‑Petitioner wife instituted suit for dissolution of marriage against husband prior in time at place where marriage of spouses was solemnised ‑‑Respondent husband subsequently instituted suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife at different place‑‑To avoid conflict of judgments as common question of law and facts were likely to arise in both suits, High Court considered that two suits should be tried by one and same Court‑‑Keeping in view inconvenience of Pardanasheen lady, husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights was ordered to be transferred to place where wife's suit for dissolution of marriage against husband was pending. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
First, that the marriage of the parties was performed at Lahore to which place the petitioner had to revert on falling out with the respondent and has, therefore, instituted the suit for dissolution of marriage at Lahore; Secondly, that she is a Pardanasheen lady and it would be inconvenient and hazardous for her to go to Gujranwala on each date of hearing to defend herself there; Thirdly, that the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage is earlier in time than the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights which has been filed at Gujranwala merely to cause harassment to her; and Lastly, that in order to avoid conflict of judgments it would be in the interest of justice that the two suits wherein similar questions of fact and law are likely to arise should be tried by one and the same Court.
3. The respondent who is present in person objects to the transfer ground that he feels that he would be bodily harmed if he comes to Lahoret to defend himself here. He in the same context submits that he has already been inflicted an injury on the forehead.
4. I have enquired from the respondent whether he made any report to the Police about the incident in which he is alleged to have been injured. The reply is in the negative. The assertion, therefore, goes, uncorroborated. In any case he has to come to Lahore to defend himself; in the suit for dissolution of marriage instituted by the petitioners against him because there is no application made by him seeking transfer of the said suit.
5. The contentions raised by the petitioner also appear' to have force as these find support from the case‑law on the subject of transfer; of suits arising under the Family Courts Act.
6. In view of the foregoing, I accept this petition and direct that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Muhammad Hanif v. Musarrat Bibi be withdrawn from the Court of Ch. Zafar Iqbal, Judge Family Court, Gujranwala and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Shafqat Ahmad, Judge Family Court, Lahore for adjudication in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the Judge Family Court, Lahore, on 26th June, 1986 in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights as well.
8. The Court from which the suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case reaches the transferee Court well in advance of the date fixed above.
9. The transferee Court shall ensure that same dates of hearing are fixed in the two suits to avoid inconvenience to the parties. H.B.T. Petition accepted.