' This is an application under section 25-A of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 for transfer of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled "Muhammad Sultan v. Mst. Bashiran Bibi" from the Court of Muhammad Jahandad Khan, Judge Family Court, Lahore to the Court of Ch. Muhammad Siddiq Tabassam, Judge Family Court, Depalpur, District Okara before whom the suit for dissolution of marriage instituted by the petitioner against the respondent earlier is already pending.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the marriage of the parties was performed at Shergarh, Tebsil Depalpur, District Okara, and that both the parties initially belonged to the same place.
' It is further urged that after the petitioner fell out with her husband she started living with her mother at Shergarh and as such has instituted the suit for dissolution of marriage against the respondent before the Judge, Family Court, Depalpur on 7th September, 1982.
' The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent, as a counterblast, after the institution of the suit by the petitioner on 7th September' 1982 has filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Judge, Family Court, Lahore on 16th November, 1982 only to cause harassm ent to her.
' Lastly, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner apprehends danger to her life if she comes to defend the suit filed against her at Lahore.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in fact the petitioner is a woman of loose moral, that she eloped with one Dosa and the respondent got a case registered against her paramour with Police Station Chung on 13th October, 1982 and that the present suit for dissolution of marriage has been institued by her only to bolster up a defence in the criminal case registered against her at the behest of the respondent. It is urged that in these circumstances the suit of the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights should not be transferred.
4. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I find that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have force. In fact) these contentions are based on well-settled principles governing the subject of transfer and trial of cases arising under the Family Courts Act between the same parties.
5. It being the established position that the suit of the petitioner for dissolution of marriage is earlier in time and the marriage of the spouse, was also performed within the jurisdiction of Tehsil Depalpur it would be in the interest of justice and of all concerned that the two suits which are likely to involve common questions of law and facts be tried by one and the same Court.
6. It is also well-settled that the appropriate place for trial of suit for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights between the c same parties is the place where the wife has instituted the suit. It will be moreso in the case in hand is that the suit for dissolution of marriage had been filed earlier.
7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, I suffice by observing that that would have no bearing upon the controversy involved in the two suits and it is also the admitted position that the case registered, as stated, has not so far been put up in the Court even.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, allowing this application I direct that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights titled "Muhammad Sultan v. Mst. Bashiran Bibi" be withdrawn from the Court o Muhammad Jahandad Khan, Judge Family Court, Lahore and entruste to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Depalpur, District Okara before whom the petitioner's suit against the respondent for dissolution of marriage is pending, for adjudication in accordance with law.
' There will, however, be no order as to costs.
' The parties shall appear before the learned transferee Court in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights as well on 14th January, 1984.
9. The Court at Lahore from which the suit has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case transferred reaches the transferee Court well in advance of the date fixed above.
10. The learned transferee Court is also directed to fix the same dates of hearing in both the suits to avoid inconvenience to the respondent.