' This petition has been filed under section 25-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, for the transfer of the suit for dissolution of marriage instituted by the respondent against the petitioner at Gujranwala to some Court at Lahore on the plea that the petitioner apprehends danger to his personal safety at Gujranwala on account of aggressive attitude of the respondent and her family members. The petitioner has stated that after the institution of the suit by the petitioner, he was attacked by some male family members of the respondent on 12-8-1984 at Sheikhupura where he had gone to see his ailing uncle. According to the petitioner, he received a number of injuries including one on his head which was serious in nature.
2. The respondent has opposed the petitioner's request for the transfer of her suit from Gujranwala to Lahore. Learned counsel appearing on her behalf has submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition are false, as neither the respondent nor her family members have given any threat to him. The respondent does not know anything about the alleged attack on the petitioner at Sheikhupura and that no member of her family is involved in it. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the petitioner being a pardanasheen lady would be put to inconvenience, if her suit is transferred to Lahore.
3. It is now a well settled proposition of law that in matrimonial disputes, ordinarily it is the convenience of the wife which is kept in view in the matter of choice of venue of trial. The respondent has instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage at Gujranwala. The transfer of this suit to Lahore, as requested by the petitioner, would be certainly inconvenient to the respondent. The only reason stated by the petitioner for transfer of the aforementioned suit to Lahore is that he apprehends serious danger to his personal safety at Gujranwala from the male members of the respondent's family and their supporters. For this reason, the respondent cannot be put to inconvenience which would be caused in the event of transfer of her suit to Lahore. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has refuted the allegations made by the petitioner that there is any danger to his personal safety at Gujranwala. The petitioner can seek adequate remedy against any possible threat to his personal safety by approaching the law enforcing authorities. He can even request the trial Court for providing him necessary police assistance in case any such assistance is needed. As ordinarily the personal appearance of the parties is not necessary on cacti date of hearing in civil proceedings, the petitioner can appoint some one as his attorney to pursue his case at Gujranwala, if he thinks that his frequent visits to Gujranwala to defend the suit instituted by the respondent, would endanger his personal safety. In any case, the reason stated by him for the transfer of the respondent's suit from Gujranwala, does not justify the transfer of the suit from Gujranwala to Lahore.
4. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner has also instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent at Lahore. This suit, according to learned counsel for the respondent, should also be tried by the Family Court, Gujranwala, where the respondents' suit for dissolution of marriage is pending. Under section 25-A of the Family Courts Act, this Court can order the transfer of the aforementioned suit even in the absence of any application by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been instituted by the petitioner at Lahore. He, however, has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the respondent for the transfer of the aforementioned suit to Gujranwala on the same grounds on which the petitioner has sought the transfer of the respondents's suit for dissolution of marriage to Lahore. The reason given by the petitioner for the transfer of the respondent's suit has already been considered and has not been found of much substance. As common questions of fact and law are likely to arise in the two suits, the request made by learned counsel for the respondent for the transfer of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the petitioner against the respondent at Lahore to the Family Court, Gujranwala, where the respondent's suit for dissolution of marriage is pending appears to be reasonable and is accordingly, allowed. For the reasons noticed above, the present petition filed by the petitioner for the transfer of the respondent's suit to Lahore is dismissed. No order is made as to costs.