1. ' By the present application, Nayyar Khan, applicant, seeks transfer of Family Suit No, 19 of 1985, pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Thatta, to a competent Court at Karachi.
2. ' The applicant, was married to Mst. Farha Shahwar in 1978. It seems that the relations between the spouses got spoiled, so that there was a dispute. The ,respondent has filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge at Thatta for dissolution of her marriage. In the plaint, averments are made that the marriage has not been consummated. It is also stated that Nikah was performed by the parents of the respondent against her wishes. It is stated that Haq Mehar was fixed Rs,12,050, and the same has also not been paid. It is further stated that the respondent is, a Graduate viz. An educated lady, whereas the applicant is a illiterate person, who has no ostensible means of livelihood. It is also alleged that the applicant is a person with criminal tendency and indulges in consumption of Charas and gambling.
3. ' The suit was filed by the respondent at Thatta on the premises that she was residing in that town, alongwith her father, who was working in the Sind Road Transport Corporation.
4. The averments in the present transfer application are that the respondent is not residing at Thatta, but at Karachi, and the suit has been filed by her at Thatta only to cause inconvenience and trouble to the applicant.
5. ' Documents have been produced by Mr. A.F.M. Mokarim to show that the father of the respondent is working at Thatta and the respondent herself is attached with APWA as a social worker in that organisation. Counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondent, her father Liaquat Hussain and Nayyar Khan. In each one of these affidavits, it is stated that the respondent is residing at Thatta.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh resists that position, by stating that a summon issued to the respondent was served on her at her Landhi address, which is disclosed in the memo of this application. To that extent, Mr. A.F.M. Mokarim states that the summon was never served on the respondent, and the Landhi address, which has been disclosed, is a house that is in the occupation of a brother of the respondent. There appears to be preponderance of evidence on the point that the respondent is residing at Thatta.
7. On the other hand, there are a few circumtances, which als support the contention of the respondent. First of all, the respondent, who is not living with the applicant, who is her husband, would normally be residing with her father. The father, admittedly, is working at Thatta. Then, one must notice a fact that a woman would never like t go from Karachi to Thatta for filing a suit, if the Karachi Court had jurisdiction. The very fact of the suit having been filed at Thatta indicates that she must be residing there, as otherwise the plaintiff/ respondent would expose herself to unnecessary trouble and expense in going to Thatta, on each date of hearing.
8. ' In view of the circumstances of this case, this application is dismissed in limine.
9. Transfer .