' This order shall dispose of the instant petition (T.A. No,224-C of 1984) as well as connected petition, namely, T.A. No, 389-C of 1984.
2. Facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioner, Mst.Azra Syed, was married to the respondent, Syed Tanveer Abbas Shamsi, sometime ago. Differences have, however, arisen between them. As a result, the petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, a suit for recovery of dower and a suit for maintenance which are being heard by Mr. Badar-uz-Zaman Chatha, Judge, Family Court, Faisalabad. On the other hand, the respondent has brought a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending before Mr. Muhammad Anwar, Judge, Family Court, Toba Tek Singh. The petitioner has made the instant petition for transfer of the respondent's suit to Faisalabad. The respondent too has made the connected petition for transfer of the petitioner's suits from Faisalabad to Toba Tek Singh.
3. In view of the nature of the said suits, common questions of law and fact are likely to arise therein. Conflicting findings on such questions can be avoided if the above suits are heard and decided by A one and the same Court. However, if they are allowed to be heard by the Courts now seized of them, the petitioner will have to go to Toba Tek Singh to defend the suit brought by the respondent and the latter will have to visit Faisalabad to resist the suits instituted by the former.
It is, therefore, my desire that one of the parties should be saved of the bother and expense to which she/he would be put for going to a place other than the place of her/his residence to contest the suits against her/him. Which of the two parties should be he paid in this regard is the question which now falls for consideration. Since the petitioner is a female but the respondent is a male, and the petitioner claims to be Pardahnashin lady and apprehends trouble at the hands of the respondent in the event of her going to Toba Tek Singh to defend the suit brought against her, I feel that she deserves to be accommodated in preference to the respondent. Her suit for dissolution of marriage is also earlier in time. I am, therefore, inclined to transfer the respondent's suit to Faisalabad.
4. In the connected petition, it was submitted by the respondent that Mr. Shafqat Ahmed Sajid, Civil Judge, Faisalabad, was the husband of the petitioner's sister and he was threatening the respondent that he would get the petitioner's suits decided in her favour. It was also maintained by him that Mr. Badar-uz-Zaman Chatha, Civil Judge, Faisalabad, had asked the respondent to compromise with the petitioner otherwise her suits would be decided against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed me that Mr. Shafqat Ahmed Sajid has since been transferred from Faisalabad to Lahore. This fact has been confirmed by the office. Learned counsel for the petitioner has controverted the respondent's allegation against Mr. Badar-uz-Zaman Chatha. He has, however, no objection to the hearing of all the suits by a Family Judge other than Mr. Ctitha, at Faisalabad.
5. In the circumstances, I transfer the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights from the Court of Mr. Muhammad Anwar, Family Judge, Toba Tek Singh to the Court of Syed Sultan Ahmed, Family Judge, Faisalabad. The petitioner's suits for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower and maintenance are also transferred from the Court of Mr. Badar-uz-Zaman Chatha to that of Syed Sultan Ahmed.
6. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. accordingly.