1985 PLP 2685 (CLC)
SAMINA ABID — Petitioner Versus ARID RAZA SAMI — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 2685 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | SAMINA ABID — Petitioner Versus ARID RAZA SAMI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 2685 (CLC)?
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 1985 PLP 2685 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 2685 (CLC) (SAMINA ABID — Petitioner Versus ARID RAZA SAMI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti for Petitioner.
- Tariq Javed for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A--Transfer of family case--Husband filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife at place S--Wife later on filed suit for recovery of dower against husband at place S--Wife sought transfer of husband's suit at place L on ground of inconvenience--Court refused transfer of husband's suit from place S to place L in circumstances as wife herself chose Family Court at place S for filing suit for recovery of dower.
Judgment & Decree
Through this application, a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, filed by the respondent against the applicant, under hearing in the learned Family Court Sialkot, is, sought to be transferred to some Family Court based at Lahore.
2. In support of this application it is argued that the applicant resides at Lahore and her brother who is only male member of her family is serving in the army and posted at Rahimyar Khan, she apprehends mischief at the hands of the respondent in case she, visits Sialkot, to defend the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application. He argued that after the filing of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, the applicant herself instituted a suit against the respondent, in the Family Court Sialkot for recovery of dower, which is still under hearing. In his submission, this institution, completely negatives the applicant's stand. The allegation that she would be maltreated has also been controverted,
4. The filing of the suit in the Family Court Sialkot for recovery of dower, is, not denied by the learned counsel for the applicant. He, however, submits that it is being conducted through an attorney and the hearing having been completed it is now fixed for arguments and orders.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to allow this application. The applicant herself chose Family Court Sialkot for filing the suit for recovery of dower and that too after the institution of his suit by the respondent. A little bit of inconvenience is inevitable in the litigation. I see no good ground to transfer the respondent's suit to the Lahore Court. This application, therefore, dismissed but with no order as to costs. H .B.T. Application dismissed.