' Mst. Nusrat Parveen filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the respondent before the learned Judge Family Court Ferozewala District Sheikhupura, on 3-9-1983. Subsequently, the respondent also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner before the learned Judge Family Court Jaranwala on 13-10-1983.
2. The petitioner has filed the present transfer application seeking transfer of the suit filed by the respondent against her for restitution of conjugal rights at Jaranwala on the ground that she had filed suit for dissolution of marriage at Ferozewala prior to the suit filed by the respondent which is sought to be transferred and that it was very difficult for the petitioner who was a 'Parda'-observing lady to go to Jaranwala to defend the litigation brought against her by the respondent. It has also been contended in the transfer application that similar issues were involved in both the suits and that she apprehended her abduction at the hand of the respondent if she was obliged to go to Jaranwala.
3. The transfer application has been opposed by the 'respondent and it has been argued on his behalf that the petitioner was also resident of Chak No,77/RB Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad and, therefore, Family Court at Ferozewala where she had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage lacked territorial jurisdiction in the matter.
4. It is provided in proviso to rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 that in suits for dissolution of marriage, the Court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resides shall also have jurisdiction. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that since after having been turned out of his house by the respondent, the petitioner was ordinarily residing at village Sadhanwali, Tehsil Feroze wala, District Sheikhupura alongwith her mother and maternal-uncle etc. It is thus pleaded that the Family Court at Ferozewala was competent to hear the suit for dissolution of marriage brought by her against the respondent. Conversely, on behalf of the respondent, it is alleged that Sadhanwali has never been the ordinary place of residence of the petitioner. The respondent has produced a certified copy of the power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of her counsel whom she engaged to defend the suit brought against her at Jaranwala by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. In the power of attorney, she is shown to be the resident of Chak No,77/RB, Tehsil Jaranwala. Two affidavits sworn by Abdul Karim, Member Union Council Chak No,77/RB, Tehsil Jaranwala and Nemat Ali, Sarbar4h Lamberdar of the same Chak have also been produced. The contents of these affidavits show that the petitioner is permanent resident of Chak No,77/RB, Tehsil Jaranwala. It is stated in the affidavits that the petitioner did not reside anywhere else. The petitioner has also produced counter-affidavits sworn by Muhammad Ramzan, her maternal-uncle, Mst. Rasoolan Bibi, her mother and Muhammad Sharif Lamberdar of village Sadhanwali. She has also sworn an affidavit personally. In all these affidavits produced by the petitioner it is stated that for the last 6/7 months, the petitioner alongwith her mother Mst. .Rasoolan Bibi was residing at village Sadhanwali, Tehsil Ferozewala.
5. In Mahboob Ahmad v. First Additional District Judge and another PLD 1976 Kar. 978, it was observed: "The proviso to rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 by the very nature of its language is an enabling provision and is for the benefit of wife. The words "ordinarily resides" must, therefore, be construed in the context of an estranged wife who has left her husband's abode and has sought residence at any other place of her own choice. It will be that place which should answer to the concept and interval of time, therefore, has no relevancy, for it will be anomally if three days' residence would not be sufficient but a three months' stay would enable her to maintain her suits. Therefore, in such an event, it is the intention of wife to stay at a particular place, which is matt rial, and if time factor is the sole criterion, then it would amount to putting a premium on the suit which she could legitimately file after relations became strained, for the dissolution of marriage or dower and that could not be the legislative intent." In Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar v.
Muhammad Boota PLD 1982 Lah. 350 also it was held that by the proviso to rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, the rigor of normal rule providing for territorial jurisdiction for trial of cases in Family Courts has been relaxed in favour of female filing a suit for dissolution of marriage.
6. Seen in the light of the provisions of proviso to rule 6 (ibid), it transpires that in the circumstances of the under consideration case, the ordinary place of residence, as envisaged in the proviso, in case of the petitioner is village Sadhanwali, Tehsil Ferozewala. In this view of the matter she has filed suit for dissolution of marriage against the respondent before a Court of competent jurisdiction. The subsequent suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights at Jaranwala deserves to be transferred to the Family A Court at Ferozewala as common questions of fact and law are involved in both the cases and also on account of the convenience of the lady litigant who is to be given preference.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the present transfer application is allowed and the suit of the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights filed against the petitioner pending before learned Judge Family Court Jaranwala is hereby transferred from the said Court to the Court of learned Judge Family Court Ferozewala where a previously instituted suit of the petitioner for dissolution of marriage is pending. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.