MLD 1989

1989 PLP 84 (MLD)

Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR alias FARAH NASREEN‑‑Petitioner Versus Sh. MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Transfer Application No. 445/C of 1988, heard on 23rd January, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Lehrasap Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 84 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Lehrasap Khan, J
Parties Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR alias FARAH NASREEN‑‑Petitioner Versus Sh. MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑‑Respondent
Primary Law West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 84 (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 1989 PLP 84 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Lehrasap Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 84 (MLD) (Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR alias FARAH NASREEN‑‑Petitioner Versus Sh. MUSHTAQ AHMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)‑‑

Representation

  • Muhammad Amjad Butt for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1989.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Transfer of case‑‑Wife being `Pardanasheen' lady was residing at place `G' with her parents where she filed suit for dissolution of marriage against husband‑‑Wife's suit was prior in time to husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights subsequently filed at place `M.B.'‑‑Convenience of lady litigant to be preferred‑‑Common questions of law and facts being involved in both cases, it would be expedient that both case be heard and decided by one and same Court to avoid contradictory judgments‑‑Suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending adjudication in Court at place `M.B.' was ordered to be transferred to Court at place `G' where wife's suit for dissolution of marriage against husband was pending. Respondent in person.

Judgment & Decree

Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1989. The parties were married in December, 1983, at Gujranwala. For about 1‑ years after the marriage, their inter se relations remained quite cordial. They were also blessed with two children. In 1985, the respondent allegedly turned out the petitioner from his house and, thereafter, failed to maintain her and the children.. Since then, the petitioner is living with her parents at Gujranwala. In January, 1988, she filed a suit, seeking dissolution of the parties marriage, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala, who also exercises the powers of Judge, Family Court. Subsequently the respondent also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner before the learned Judge, Family Court, Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat.

2. Through the present transfer application, the petitioner has sought the transfer of the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights to the Legal rights to the Court of the Family Court, Gujranwala, in whose Court the, petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage is already pending. It has been alleged that the petitioner being a `Pardanasheen' lady, it is highly inconvenient for her to go to Mandi Bahauddin on every date of hearing to defend the litigation brought against her by the respondent through his suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The respondent has put in appearance today and has verbally urged that it would also be inconvenient for him if he is obliged to attend the Court at Gujranwala on every date of hearing. He has, however, conceded that the petitioner lived with her parents at Gujranwala, who were residents of Gujranwala. He has also admitted that the petitioner first filed suit for dissolution of marriage at Gujranwala and subsequently he filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights at Mandi Bahauddin.

4. This Court has always preferred the convenience of lady litigants. The respondent is already defending the suit riled by the petitioner against him at Gujranwala for dissolution of marriage. Obviously, common questions of law and facts arc involved in both the cases and to avoid contradictory judgments, it would be expedient that both the cases are heard and decided by one and the 4 same Court.

5. In the circumstances, detailed above, the under consideration transfer application is allowed. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights, titled: Mushtaq Ahmad v. Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, pending in the Court of Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah, Judge, Family Court, Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat, is hereby withdrawn from the said learned Court and entrusted to the Court of Sheikh Ahmad Farooq, Judge, Family Court, Gujranwala, in whose Court the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage is already pending.

6. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. H.B.T./N‑188/L. Suit transferred.