2012 PLP 474 (MLD)
MUSARRAT BIBI and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 474 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUSARRAT BIBI and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 474 (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 2012 PLP 474 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 474 (MLD) (MUSARRAT BIBI and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Tahir Ahmad Shah for Petitioners.
- Waqas Qadeer Dar, Assistant Advocate General.
- Rana Abdul Majeed Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance
Suit was pending before Family Court at place "G"
Petitioner sought transfer of suit to place "M" on the ground that both parties were now residing at place "M" and petitioner being a pardanasheen lady was facing hardships appearing before court at place "G"
Petitioner had obtained an ex parte decree against respondent and the application of the respondent for setting aside the same was pending before the same court at place "G" that was likely to be decided within a short span of time
Held, petitioner had herself chosen to file suit at place "G" and court was not supposed to oblige the petitioner merely for the reason that she was no more resident at the given address after the filing of the suit
No useful purpose would be served if suit was transferred at the request of the petitioner
Application for transfer was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, C.J.
Through this application under section 25-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the petitioners seek transfer of suit for recovery of maintenance allowance titled "Musarrat Bibi and others v. Muhammad Nawaz" filed by them against the respondent, which is pending in the Court of Ms. Samina Asad, Judge Family Court, Gujranwala, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Mandi Baha ud Din, on the grounds that now both the parties are residing at Mandi Baha ud Din; and petitioner No.1 being a Parda Nasheen lady is facing hardships while appearing before the learned Judge Family Court at Gujranwala.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed this application on the grounds that the respondent is a permanent resident of Gujranwala; that cause of action had accrued to the petitioner at Gujranwala and she herself had filed suit at Gujranwala; that according to the addresses mentioned in the suit both the parties are the residents of Gujranwala; that the petitioner has obtained an ex parte decree with mala fide intention; that the respondent has moved an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree which is pending before the learned Judge Family Court, Gujranwala; and that it is not a valid ground that now the petitioner is living at Mandi Baha ud Din and the petitioner has sought transfer of the suit just to create difficulties for the respondent.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that in the annexure-A, which has been annexed by the petitioner herself with this petition, the addresses of both the parties are of Gujranwala. The petitioner has obtained an ex parte decree against the respondent and after coming to know about the said decree the respondent has filed an application seeking setting aside of the same, which is pending in the same Court at Gujranwala and the matter is likely to be decided within a short span of time. The petitioner herself has chosen to file the suit at Gujranwala and this Court is not supposed to oblige a lady merely for the reason that she is no more residing at the given address after filing of the suit. Therefore, for the said reasons no useful purpose would be served to transfer the suit at the request of the petitioner. Consequently, this petition having no force is dismissed. K.M.Z./M-853/L Petition dismissed.