' This petition under section 25-A of Family Courts Act seeks transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled Muhammad Yaqoob v. Musarrat Tahira from the Court of Mian Ashiq Muhammad Faiz, Judge Family Court, Daska, District Sialkot to the Judge, Family Court, Lahore, before whom the two suits filed by the petitioner against the respondent ; one for dissolution of marriage and the other for maintenance are pending.
2. The grounds on which the transfer has been sought for are that the two suits filed by the petitioner against the respondent at Lahore are earlier in time than the one filed by the respondent against the petitioner in Daska that the petitioner being a lady apprehends danger at the hands of the respondent if she has to go to Daska as the respondent has held out threats to the petitioner of forcibly lifting her ; end that the father of the petitioner having died, she has no male member to accompany her to Daska for her protection.
3. This case was heard in motion on 22-11-1980 when notice was issued to the respondent for 20-12- 1980 and the proceedings in the suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner were stayed.
When the matter came up for hearing on 20-12-1980 after notice to the respondent, the learned counsel for the respondent brought it to the notice of the Court that the suit of respondent has been decreed by the Family Court, Daska. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that no decree had been passed till filing of this Transfer petition in which stay was granted on 22- 11-1980 and any order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Daska subsequent to the order of stay was of no consequence and was coram non judice. In view of the above position, record was sent for from the Daska Court and it was found that the trial Court had proceeded with the matter even after the stay of proceedings and after recording ex parte evidence it decreed the suit against the petitioner. From the record of this Court it transpired that the interim order dated 22-11-1980 had been duly communicated to the Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot. Reports were, therefore, called for from the Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot as also from the Judge, Family Court, Daska as to whether the former communicated the order of stay of proceedings to the latter and if so, why did the latter proceed with the matter despite stay of proceedings. The reports have been received. The Senior Civil Judge has reported that the order of this Court dated 22-11-1980 was received by his Court on 26-11-1980 and that it was despatched the same day to the Daska Court. The Judge, Family Court, Daska, on the other hand has reported that r o such order was received by him.
4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the proceedings in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending before the Judge, Family Court, Daska had been stayed on 22-11-1980 by an order of this Court. It is the well-established principle that a stay order takes effect from the moment it is passed. The order staying the proceedings before the Judge, Family Court in the instant case had, therefore, 'taken effect as soon as it was passed on 22-11-1980 and whatever proceedings have been taken thereafter in the suit of the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights were a nullity in the eyes of law. I am fortified in my above view by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Karam All v. Raja (1) and another judgment of this Court in case Syed Ahmad v. Syed Muhammad Saeed and another (2).
5. It may be observed here that the learned counsel for the respondent could not urge anything against the above principle of law and had to concede that the ex parte decree passed by the Judge, Family Court, Daska has no legal validity.
6. The above discussion, therefore, leads to the irresistible conclusion that the ex parte decree dated 9-12-1980 passed by the Judge. Family Court, Daska is a nullity, does not exist in the eyes of law and of necessity has to be treated as non est. Resultantly the suit filed by the respondent shall {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) PLD 1949 Lah. 100 (2) PLD 1955 Lah. 34 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' be deemed to be pending and the proceedings therein shall have to be taken de novo from the stage on which those were as on 22-11-1980.
7. Reverting now to the subject of transfer of the case, it is the admitted position that the suits filed by the petitioner pending before the Judge, Family Court, Lahore are earlier in time than the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by him at Daska. It is also the admitted position that the matters in the suit of dissolution of marriage filed by the petitioner against the respondent and those in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights instituted by the respondent against the petitioner are similar. It will, therefore, be in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflict of judgments by the two Courts, that all the pending suits between the parties should be heard by the same Judge, Family Court. Apart from the fact that the suits of the petitioner are earlier in time, her apprehension of being maltreated at the hands of respondent if she has to go to Daska, can also be not lost sight of especially in view of her uncontroverted assertion that she has no male member to accompany her to Daska for her protection.
' In view of the foregoing discussion I transfer the suit titled Muhammad Yaqub v. Mst. Musarrat Tahira pending in the Court of Mian Ashiq Muhammad Faiz, Judge, Court, Daska, District Sialkot to the Court of Mr. Muhammad Nasim Akhtar, Judge, Family Court, Lahore where the two suits of the petitioner against the respondent are pending adjudication. The learned Judge, Family Court, Lahore shall consolidate all the three and decide them together.
' There shall be no order as to costs.