1994 PLP 1534 (MLD)
Mst. KHALIDA PARVEEN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1534 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. KHALIDA PARVEEN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1534 (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 1994 PLP 1534 (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: 1994 PLP 1534 (MLD) (Mst. KHALIDA PARVEEN — Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner.
- 3. Learned counsel for respondent says that there was settlement through `Punchait' between the parties which was reduced into writing, according to which the petitioner was to live with the respondent as his wife. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that according to the said settlement the respondent was to fulfil certain conditions such as delivery of golden ornaments of the petitioner to her after which she was to go to the house of respondent which was not delivered to her. The respondent who is present in the Court stated that no golden ornaments of the petitioner were ever with him. I am not called upon to decide this controversy in these proceedings. It would be open to the respondent to raise any plea in connection therewith in the suit filed by the petitioner, in the written statement which shall be decided by the Court as to who was at fault.
Headnotes / Summary
S.25-A
Wife's suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was pending at "O" while husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights was pending adjudication at "K"
Wife's application for transfer of husband's suit to "O" was accepted on the ground that petitioner being female and husband having not filed any application seeking transfer of wife's suit from "O" he would not undergo inconvenience because while defending suit at "O" filed by wife where he had to appear, he could also prosecute his own suit after its transfer to the same Court who was directed to dispose/of both the suits together.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner seeks transfer of a family suit titled "Ghulam Rasool v. Khalida Parveen" filed by the respondent against her for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending in the Court of Sardar Muhammad Rana, learned Family Judge, Kasur to the Court of Mr. Zawar Ahmad, learned Judge Family Court, Okara where her suit for recovery of maintenance allowance filed against the respondent is pending.
2. The petitioner is a female, therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that she will have to undergo inconvenience if the suit of the respondent is not transferred to Okara as against the respondent who having not filed any application seeking transfer of petitioner's suit from Okara, therefore, respondent will not have to undergo further inconvenience because while defending the suit at Okara filed by the petitioner where he has to appear he can also prosecute his own suit after transfer, has force.
3. Learned counsel for respondent says that there was settlement through `Punchait' between the parties which was reduced into writing, according to which the petitioner was to live with the respondent as his wife. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that according to the said settlement the respondent was to fulfil certain conditions such as delivery of golden ornaments of the petitioner to her after which she was to go to the house of respondent which was not delivered to her. The respondent who is present in the Court stated that no golden ornaments of the petitioner were ever with him. I am not called upon to decide this controversy in these proceedings. It would be open to the respondent to raise any plea in connection therewith in the suit filed by the petitioner, in the written statement which shall be decided by the Court as to who was at fault.
4. For the foregoing reasons this application is allowed. The suit titled "Ghulam Rasul v. Khalida Parveen" for restitution of conjugal rights pending in the Court of Sardar Muhammad Rana, learned Judge Family Court, Kasur is withdrawn from his Court and transferred to the Court of Mr. Zawar Ahmad, learned Judge Family Court, Okara for disposal alongwith the suit filed by the petitioner titled "Khalida Parveen v. Ghulam Rasul" for maintenance allowance which is pending in his Court.
5. Transfer Application disposed of. AA./K-125/L Case transferred.