1980 PLP 351 (CLC)
SHAHAMAD BAIG-Petitioner Versus MUNAWAR SULTANA-Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 351 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad 1lyas, J |
| Parties | SHAHAMAD BAIG-Petitioner Versus MUNAWAR SULTANA-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 351 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 351 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad 1lyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 351 (CLC) (SHAHAMAD BAIG-Petitioner Versus MUNAWAR SULTANA-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nawazish Ali Asadi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A-Suits for conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage pending between parties-Involvement of some issues of common nature in view of nature of suits easily visualised-To avoid conflicting decisions thereon desirable that both suits be heard and decided together by one and same Court.-[Transfer of civil cases]. [p.352]A -- S. 25-A-Transfer of civil cases-Suits for conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage, transfer of-Normally in deciding such questions more care to be taken of convenience of female party-Male party suffering from physical disability i.e. lack of vision, held, needs more accommodation than female party-Wife's suit for dissolution of marriage transferred to Court where husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending,-[Transfer of civil cases]. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
S. 25-A-Transfer of civil cases-Suits for conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage, transfer of-Normally in deciding such questions more care to be taken of convenience of female party-Male party suffering from physical disability i.e. lack of vision, held, needs more accommodation than female party-Wife's suit for dissolution of marriage transferred to Court where husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending,-[Transfer of civil cases]. Petitioner in person. Nawazish Ali Asadi for Respondent. This is an application for transfer of a suit for dissolution of marri age brought by the respondent, Mst. Munawar Sultana against the petitioner, Shahamad Baig, in the Court of Mr. Siddique Tabassum, Family Judge, Kasur. The petitioner seeks its transfer to Sheikhupura where his suit. against the respondent, for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before a Judge of the Family Court, namely, Ch. Muhammad Aslam. 2. It has been alleged by the petitioner that some years ago he was manhandled by the relatives of the respondent. They extracted both of his eye balls from the "sockets" and thus deprived him of his eye-sight. According to him, they have now instigated her to file the above suit at Kasur so that they may take his life on his going to Kasur to defend the suit. The petitioner has revealed that the criminal case relating to the gauging of his eyes by the relatives of the respondent is pending decision in a criminal Court at Sheikhupura. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the Courts at Kasur have jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the respondent because at present she is residing there. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted before the respondent had brought herb suit for dissolution of marriage. In view of the nature of the two suits pending between the parties it can easily be visualized that they will involve some issues of common nature. Therefore, with a view to avoid ing conflicting decisions thereon, it will be desirable that both the suits be heard and decided together by one and the same Court. 5. Now, the only question which requires determination is as to whether the two suits be heard at Kasur or Sheikhupura. Normally, in deciding such questions more care is taken of the convenience of the female party but since in the present case the malt party suffers from a physical disability namely, lack of vision, he needs more accommodation than the other. 1, therefore, transfer the respondent's suit from Kasur to the Court of Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Family Judge, Sheikhupura. 6. The petition is disposed of accordingly. M. A. K Petition accepted.