Pakistan Case Law
1992 MLD 109

MUVI MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus MST. NASIM AKHTAR

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1992 MLD 109
CourtLahore High Court
Judge(s)Muhammad Ilyas

ORDER

Petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, has made this petition for transfer of a suit for dissolution of marriage, filed by his wife, Mst. Nasim Akhtar, in the Court of Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Ranjha, Judge, Family Court, Gujranwala. The petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before Mr. Hassan Mir, Judge, Family Court, Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din, District Gujrat. It has been prayed by the petitioner that the respondent's suit for dissolution of marriage may also be transferred to said Court at Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent did not reside within the local limits of the Court which is seized of her suit for dissolution of marriage and, therefore, the said Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The question of jurisdiction raised by him is to be judicially determined after recording evidence of the parties. I, therefore, cannot express any opinion in this regard while dealing with this petition for transfer of the case. If the petitioner is serious in agitating the question of jurisdiction he should do so before the Court in which the respondent's suit is pending and obtain a finding thereon. Needless to say that if the finding is recorded in favour of the petitioner, plaint in suit of the respondent shall be returned to her for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

3. There is plenty of case‑law on the point that in matrimonial cases more care should be taken of the convenience of the female party than that of the convenience of the male party. In the existing state of affairs, therefore, I would not like to oblige the respondent, who is a female, to go from Gujranwala to Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din every now and then, to deal with litigation between her and the petitioner, who is a male and is residing at Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din. Respondent's suit is, therefore, not transferred to Mandi Baha ud‑Din.

4. Resultantly, this petition fails. It is dismissed in limine.

AA./M‑23/1, Petition dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.