1983 PLP 2489 (CLC)
SAADIA PERVEEN AKHTAR-Petitioner Versus HUMAYUN IQBAL-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 2489 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Mehboob Ahmad, J |
| Parties | SAADIA PERVEEN AKHTAR-Petitioner Versus HUMAYUN IQBAL-Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 2489 (CLC)?
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 1983 PLP 2489 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Mehboob Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 2489 (CLC) (SAADIA PERVEEN AKHTAR-Petitioner Versus HUMAYUN IQBAL-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Sarwar for Petitioner.
- M. Abdullah Sheikh for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 15th January, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A (1)-Husband's suit against wife-Transfer of--Wife's two suits for dissolution of marriage and for recovery of dower against husband (instituted earlier) pending before Judge Family Court at S-Wife pardanashin lady-Marriage also performed at S-Wife seeking transfer of husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her from Judge Family Court at L to his counterpart at S-Held, suits under West Pakistan Family Courts Act better tried by one Court to avoid conflict of judgments and while deciding place of adjudication of such suits convenience of lady litigant be given due consideration.
Judgment & Decree
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends first that the petitioner is a pardanashin lady and is residing at Sahiwal where the marriage of the parties was performed, after having fallen out with her husband and that it would be in convenient for her to travel all the way to Lahore to defend herself there ; secondly : that the same, questions of fact and law are likely to arise in the suits for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights and that it would be in the interest of justice that both the suits are tried by one and same Court to avoid conflict of judgment ; and thirdly : that the suits of the petitioner are earlier 'in time than the suit of the respondent which has been filed only as a counter blast to harass her.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, only submits that the respondent is afraid of going to Sahiwal as he apprehends bodily harm.
4. I am afraid the contention raised on behalf of the respondent has no force. If there is any apprehension in the mind of the respondent he may seek protection of the Court where he shall appear before the Police.
5. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, have merit as it is well-established that suits arising under the W. P. Family Courts Act should better be tried by one and the same Court to avoid conflict of judgment. It is also well-settled that while deciding the place of adjudication of such suits the convenience of a lady litigant should be given due consideration. It is not denied that the suits of the petitioner are earlier in time than that of the respondent, and, further, that the marriage of the parties was performed at Sahiwal.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I accept this application and direct that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent against the petitioner titled "Humayun Iqbal v. Soadia Perveen Akhtar" pending before Mr. Masood Ahmed Gbuman, Judge, Family Court, Lahore, be withdrawn from his Court and entrusted to the Court of Malik Mumtaz Hussain, Judge Family Court, Sahiwal before whom the petitioner's two suits are already pending, for adjudication in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The parties shall appear before the Judge, Family Court, Sahiwal on 5th February, 1983. The learned transferee Court may consider the desirability of consolidation/trial together of the suits for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights. It shall, however, fix the same dates of hearing in all the three suits to avoid inconvenience to the respondent. The Court from which the suit has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the suit reaches the transferee Court well in advance of the date fixed above. K. M. A. Application accepted.