1984 PLP 2301 (CLC)

‑‑S. 25‑A‑Dissolution of marriage‑Transfer of case sought for on grounds : (i) Petitioner's 3 suits for dissolution of marriage, maintenance and recovery of dower pending before Judge Family Court at Lahore ; (ii) respondent as counterblast filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights after 11 months of petitioner's suit; (iii) petitioner living with her parents at Lahore and obliged to tile suit there; (iv) suit of petitioner earlier in time, (v) petitioner appre hended danger to her life by going to Attock for defending herself; (vi) common question of law and fact involve which require trial by one and same Court‑Transfer of case from Judge Family Court Attock to Court of Judge Family Court, Lahore ordered. ‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑Dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights‑Trial of suits‑Held, such suits to be tried by one and same Court to avoid conflict of judgment‑More appropriate place for trial of such suits is where wife has instituted suit especially when suit of wife earlier in time. Date of bearing : 17th October, 1983. This application under section 25‑A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 seeks the transfer of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled "Hafadat Khan v. Tasleem Akhtar" from the Court of Mr. Rafi‑uz‑Zaman, Judge Family Court, Attock to the Court of Mr. Naseem Hassan, Judge Family Court, Lahore before whom the petitioner's three suits against the respondent, one for dissolution of marriage, second for maintenance and the third for recovery of dower are pending.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends. First, that the petitioner has instituted three suits against the respondent on 3rd March, 1982, one for dissolution of marriage, second for maintenance and the third for recovery of dower which are pending before Mr. Naseem Hassan, Judge Family Court, Lahore ; Secondly, that about 11 months after the institution of the aforementioned three suits by the petitioner against the respondent, the respondent, as a counterblast, filed the suit for restitution of conjugal right against the petitioner to harass her ; Thirdly, that the petitioner was obliged to institute the suits at Lahore because she had to live with her mother and father, the latter being in service of the Government of Punjab as a Driver in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, Lahore ; Fourthly, that the suits of the petitioner being earlier in time the suit of the respondent is liable to be transferred ; Fifthly, that the petitioner apprehends danger to her life at the hands o the respondent if she is made to go Attock for defending herself there; and Lastly, that common questions of law and fact are likely to be involved in the suits for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights and it would be in the interest of justice that the two suits are tried by one and the same Court to avoid conflict of judgments.

3. On the other band, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Nikah of the parties was performed at Mauzia Langar, Tebsil Fateh Jang, District Altock and as such the suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been rightly filed at Attock and is not liable to be transferred. The only other contention raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent is that the respondent came to Lahore in quest of living but having not been successful he had to return to his native place where he is living and has, therefore, filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights there.

4. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I am of the view that this application merits to be accepted. It is well‑settled that suits for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights between the same parties should better be tried by one and the same Court to avoid conflict of judgments. It has also been held consistently that the more appropriate place for trial of such suits is the place where the wife has instituted the suit, especially when the suit of the wife is earlier in time. Yet another factor which has prevailed with me to allow this applica tion is that the respondent has moved no application for transfer of the suit of the petitioner for dissolution of marriage, and therefore, in any case will have to come to Lahore to defend himself in the three suits filed against him and as such no extra inconvenience would be caused to him.

5. In view of the foregoing accepting this application I direct that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled "Hafadat Khan v. Tasleem Akhtar" be withdrawn from the Court of Rafi‑uz‑Zaman, Judge Family Court, Attock and entrusted to the Court of Naseem Hassan Judge Family Court, Lahore, for adjudication in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The parties shall appear before the learned transferee Court at Lahore in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights as well on 3rd January, 1984 the date already fixed in the three suits of the petitioner against the respondent.

6. The Court at Attock from which the suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case trans ferred reaches the transferee Court before the date fixed above. M.Y M' Application accepted.