Mst. ALLAH MAFI Versus MUNIR AHMAD

ORDER

The brief facts out of which the present application arises are that the petitioner and respondent solemnized marriage on 5‑11‑1997 in accordance with injunctions of Islam. Out of the wedlock of the petitioner and respondent, three children were born but out of which two children were died and third one namely Sajida aged about three years is in the custody of the petitioner. The relationship of the petitioner and respondent became strained. The petitioner has filed the following suits in the Court of Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Depalpur:‑‑

(i) Suit for recovery of maintenance;

(ii) Suit for recovery of dowry articles;

(iii) Suit for recd very of dower amount.

The respondent has filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Ch. Zafar Iqbal, Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Tandalianwala. The petitioner has filed this application with the prayer that the titled suit Muhammad Munir v. Allah Mafi, which is pending it the Court of Ch. Zafar Iqbal Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Tandalianwala, be transferred at Depalpur where the suit of the petitioner titled Allah M ii v. Muhammad Munir is pending.

2. The learned counsel of petitioner submits that it is inconvenience for the petitioner to appear at Tandalianwala. He further submits that respondent has filed the suit in counter blast simply to harass the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has a child aged about three years and in case, the case of the respondent is not transferred a Depalpur then petitioner has to attend the Court in Tandalianwala along with a small baby.

3. Despite service respondent did not enter appearance, therefore ex parte order is passed against the respondent coupled with the fact that process was issued for the se vice of respondent. Since proceedings it his suit have already been stayed vide order dated 14‑7‑2004 as subject to notice for today (actual) and copy of the order would have come of the file of, his suit, therefore, it appears that he is not interested in opposing the prayer for transfer of his suit. Hence, this application has been heard ex parte.

4. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. Advocate‑Genera entered appearance on Court's call he submits that application is no maintainable.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

6. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has filed aforesaid suits in the Court of Judge Family Court at Depalpur whereas husband has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Ch. Zafar Iqbal, Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Tandalianwala. It is settled principle of law that Courts have always seen the convenience of the lady and the child at the time of deciding the transfer application. The application is allowed as prayed for. Therefore, I would direct that the suit filed by respondent titled Muhammad Munir v. Allah Mafi, for restitution of conjugal rights be withdrawn from the Court of Ch. Zafar Iqbal, Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Tandalianwala and entrusted to Ch. Ghulam Rasool, Judge Family Court, Depalpur for adjudication in accordance with law. As mentioned above the respondent did not enter appearance despite service, which shows that he has filed the shit in counter blast simply to harass the petitioner to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, It is also settled principle of law that in family matte convenience of the female litigant has to be kept in view as the husband being a male undergo certain amount of hardship. It is also settled principle of law that suits arising under Family Courts Act between the same parties should be tried by one and the same Court and he place most suitable for such trial is the place where the wife has instituted the suit. Meaning thereby that admittedly some questions arising in proceedings before the Lower Courts between the same parties are satire. In order to avoid any conflict of judgments, it is conducive to the interest of justice that all the matters are heard by one Court. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the application is allowed in the aforesaid terms as per law laid down by the Superior Court in the following judgments:‑‑

Naseem Sajid v. Ghulam Yasin (NLR 1995 CLJ 95); Mst. Bakhat Shada and another v. Mansab Dar (PLD 1995 Lah. 198); Mst. Naseem Bibi v. Muhammad Baqir (NLR 995 CLJ 687); Mst. Sittara Shakoor v. Mufti Abdul Shakkor (1988 CLC 1647); Mst. Rifat Parveen v. Ishtiaq Ahmad (KLR 1990 C.C. Lahore 5); Mst. Parveen Kausar v. Muhammad Ishaq (KLR 1990 C.C. 305); Khalida Parveen and others v. Mukhtar Ahmad (NLR 1993 Civil 45); Mst. Tasleem Mai v. Muhammad Rafiq (KLR 1986 C.C. 296); Muhammad Ramzan v. Mst. Nasim Akhtar (1992 MLD 109); Farhat Shamsa v. Mushtaq Ahmad (PLD 1979 Lah. 50) and Shamim Akhtar v. Muhammad Saleem (NLR 1978 Civil 883).

The Judge Family Court at Depalpur shall decide the cases without being influenced by the observations of this Court, in accordance with law.

With these observations the application is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.

M.I./A‑282/L Petition accepted.