1999 PLP 1825 (CLC)
Mst. MUSSARAT RANT‑‑‑Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1825 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | Mst. MUSSARAT RANT‑‑‑Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1825 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1825 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1825 (CLC) (Mst. MUSSARAT RANT‑‑‑Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing; 22nd October, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 11964)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Transfer application‑‑‑Convenience of female was to be preferred while making choice of forum for trial of family suits‑‑‑Suit of respondent for restitution of conjugal rights was transferred to the Court where suit of petitioner for dissolution of marriage was pending to avoid contradictory decisions by different forums for trial of suits. Munawar Hussain Bhatti for Applicant. Respondent; Ex parts.
Judgment & Decree
Munawar Hussain Bhatti for Applicant. Respondent; Ex parts. Date of hearing; 22nd October, 1997. This is an application under section 25‑A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 for transfer of the suit filed by the respondent. The same; was admitted to hearing and the notice was issued to the respondent, who has not appeared in spite of service, therefore, he is proceeded ex parts.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the suits filed by the parties against each other may be entrusted to one and the same Court in order to avoid contradictory decisions. It is added that while selecting the forum for trial of these suits the convenience of wife is to be preferred to that of her husband.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. There is no cavil with the legal position that the suits filed by the parties against each other should be heard and decided by one and the same Court in order to. exclude the possibility of contradictory decisions. The P only question is selection of forum for trial of these suits. There is merit in the argument of the learned counsel that normally in this behalf the convenience of wife, being a female, is to be preferred to that of her husband. This is not all. The respondent has to appear in the suit of the petitioner at Hafizabad, therefore, if his suit is also transferred to Hafizabad then he shall not suffer any greater inconvenience.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that this transfer application is ' allowed. The result is that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Muhammad Fazal v. Musarat Rani pending in the Court of Mian Muhammad H Anwar, Judge Family Court, Chiniot is withdrawn from that Court and is made over to the Court of Mr. Khalid Saeed Akhtar, Judge Family Court, Hafizabad, where the suit of the petitioner for dissolution of marriage is pending. The transferee Court is directed to decide both the suits together and expeditiously in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑828/L Application allowed