1985 PLP 1133 (MLD)
Mst. RASOOLAN BIBEE — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1133 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mehboob Ahmad, J, |
| Parties | Mst. RASOOLAN BIBEE — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXX of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1133 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXX of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1133 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mehboob Ahmad, J,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1133 (MLD) (Mst. RASOOLAN BIBEE — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qaisar Riaz Hussain for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th March, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A--Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25--Application for custody of minors--Transfer of--Wife filed suits for dissolution of marriage and maintenance at piece F prior to husband's application for custody of minors--Husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights had already been transferred to place P--Minors whose custody was sought were admittedly residing with their mother at place P--Contention that common questions of law and facts being involved in litigation between parties, it would be in interest of justice that all cases between parties be tried by one and same Court to avoid conflict of judgments, held, forceful--Husband's application for custody of minors transferred, from place L to place P in circumstances. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 17th March, 1984. JUDGMENT. N. This petition under section 25-A of the Family Courts Act seeks the transfer of the application for custody of minors titled Muhammad Rashid v. Rasoolan Bibi from the Court of Guardian Judge, Lahore to the Court of Guardian Judge Pakpattan, where other litigation between the parties is already pending viz. the suit for dissolution of marriage and suit for maintenance filed by the petitioner against the respondent and suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent against the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the filing of the present application by the respondent against the petitioner for seeking custody of minors is yet another step taken by him to cause harrassment to the petitioner. He further submits that the present application was instituted by the respondent on 22nd of March, 1983, after his suit for restitution of conjugal rights had been transferred from Lahore to Pakpattan by order of this Court, dated 16th of March, 1983, passed in Transfer Application No. 228-C of 1982.
3. The learned counsel next contends that the minors are admittedly residing at Pakpattan with the petitioner and, therefore, there will be no impediment in the way of trial of this application of the respondent there.
4. The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are common questions of law and facts involved in .the litigation between the parties and it will be in the interest of justice that all the cases between the parties art- tried by one and tile same Court to avoid conflict of judgments.
5. The respondent, who is present in person, has objected to the transfer of this application only on the ground that since the minors were abducted from Lahore, he has a right to institute the suit at Lahore. He has however, not been able to give any reason why the case should not be transferred.
6. Having given consideration to the controversy, I am of the view that it is not the jurisdiction to institute the application for custody of the minors which has been challenged before me but it is the transfer of this application sought on the grounds enumerated above. The reasons advanced have force and these find support from the settled principles governing the trial and transfer of litigation between the same parties arising under the Family Law.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, accepting this petition, I direct that the application of respondent for custody of minors titled Muhammad Rashid v. Mst. Rasoolan Bibi be withdrawn from the Guardian Judge, Lahore, and entrusted to the Guardian Judge/Family Court Pakpattan, for adjudication in accordance with law. 1'tre parties shall appear before the Court at Pakpattan on 14th of April, 1984 H.B.T. Petition allowed.