1988 PLP 356 (MLD)
Mst. ANWAR BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 356 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mahboob Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Mst. ANWAR BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 356 (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 1988 PLP 356 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mahboob Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 356 (MLD) (Mst. ANWAR BIBI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Aslam Riaz for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Transfer of suit‑‑Petitioner‑wife had instituted suit for dissolution of marriage and suit for permanent injunction restraining husband from snatching children from her during period of Hizanat prior in time against respondent‑husband in two different Courts at place `F where marriage of parties was performed, whereas respondent‑husband subsequent to wife's suit, filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights against wife at place `K'‑‑Petitioner‑wife being a pardahnashin lady apprehended danger to her life and abduction of her children in case she had to go to outstation for defending herself‑-Similar questions of law and fact being rely to arise in‑two suits, it would be in the interest of justice that to avoid conflict of judgments, both suits be tried by one and same Court‑ Husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending against petitioner at place `K' and tee's suit for dissolution of marriage and injunction pending in different Court at place `F', both were ordered to be transferred in Court at place 'F where suit for permanent injunction filed by petitioner was pending so that total litigation between parties should be dealt with by one and same Court. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
First, that the marriage of the parties was performed at Faisalabad where the petitioner instituted the suit for dissolution of marriage; Secondly, that the respondent as a counterblast only and to cause harassment to the petitioner instituted the suit for restitution of conjugal rights at Kannfa, District Toba Tek Singh subsequent to the institution of the suit of the A petitioner; Thirdly, that the petitioner who is Pardahnashin lady apprehends danger to her life and abduction of her‑ children in case, he has to go to an outstation for defending herself; and Lastly, that similar questions of law and fact are likely to arise in the two suits and, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice and to avoid conflict of judgments that the two suits are tried by one and the same Court. 3 The respondent who is present in person has, on the other hand, submitted that he is a poor person and, therefore, can ill‑afford to defend himself at Faisalabad.
4. Having given consideration to the controversy I am of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have force and find support also from the precedent case‑law on the subject of transfer of suits arising under the Family Courts Act.
5. In so far as the submission of the respondent is concerned, I suffice by Observing, that the respondent in any case has to go to Faisalabad to defend himself in the suit for dissolution of marriage and also in the suit which has been instituted by the petitioner against him at Faisalabad for restraining him from snatching the minor children from her during the period of Hizanat. If the suit of the respondent is also transferred to Faisalabad and is directed to be fixed on the same dates of hearing on which the other suits of the petitioner are fixed then obviously no extra inconvenience shall be caused to him.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion allowing this petition I would direct that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled "Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Anwar Bibi" be withdrawn from the Court of Mr. Muhammad Afzal Khan, Judge Family Court, Kamalia District Toba Tek Singh and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Arshad Iqbal, Judge Family Court Faisalabad before whom the petitioner's suit for permanent injunction is pending as I intend to also withdraw the suit for dissolution of marriage instituted by the petitioner against the respondent from the Court of Mr. Akbar All Cheema and entrust the same as well to the Court of Mr. Arshad Iqbal, Judge Family Court Faisalabad so that the total litigation between the parties is dealt with by one and the same Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed that this may be so done since it is in the interest of all concerned. The above will not only cause expeditious disposal of the cases, but will also save any extra inconvenience that may be caused to any of the parties on account of pendency of cases between them in various Courts.
7. In the light of the above discussion it is also directed that the suit for dissolution of marriage titled "Mst. Anwar Bibi v. Muhammad Aslant" be also withdrawn from the Court of Mr. Akbar Ali Cheema, Judge Family Court Faisalabad and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Arshad Iqbal, Judge Family Court, Faisalabad. All the three cases between the parties shall now be adjudicated upon by the above transferee Court expeditiously and in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before Mr. Arshad lqbal, Civil Judge/Judge Family .Court in all the cases on 15‑3‑1989.
8. The Courts of Mr. Muhammad Afzal Khan, Judge Family Court Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh and Mr. Akbar Ali Cheema, Judge Family Court, Faisalabad are directed to forthwith transmit the records of the respective cases pending before them to the Court of Mr. Arshad Iqbal so that they are with the transferee Court well in advance of the date fixed above viz. 15‑3‑1989.
9. The transferee Court is directed to ensure that the same dates of hearing are fixed in all the cases between the parties. In the attendant circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑544/L Suit transferred.