The parties were married in December, 1983, at Gujranwala. For about 1- -- years after the marriage, their inter se relations remained quite cordial. They were also blessed with two children.
In 1985, the respondent allegedly turned out the petitioner from his house and, thereafter, failed to maintain her and the children.. Since then, the petitioner is living with her parents at Gujranwala. In January, 1988, she filed a suit, seeking dissolution of the parties marriage, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala, who also exercises the powers of Judge, Family Court. Subsequently the respondent also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner before the learned Judge, Family Court, Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat.
2. Through the present transfer application, the petitioner has sought the transfer of the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights to the Legal rights to the Court of the Family Court, Gujranwala, in whose Court the, petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage is already pending. It has been alleged that the petitioner being a `Pardanasheen' lady, it is highly inconvenient for her to go to Mandi Bahauddin on every date of hearing to defend the litigation brought against her by the respondent through his suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
3. The respondent has put in appearance today and has verbally urged that it would also be inconvenient for him if he is obliged to attend the Court at Gujranwala on every date of hearing. He has, however, conceded that the petitioner lived with her parents at Gujranwala, who were residents of Gujranwala. He has also admitted that the petitioner first filed suit for dissolution of marriage at Gujranwala and subsequently he filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights at Mandi Bahauddin.
4. This Court has always preferred the convenience of lady litigants. The respondent is already defending the suit riled by the petitioner against him at Gujranwala for dissolution of marriage.
Obviously, common questions of law and facts arc involved in both the cases and to avoid contradictory judgments, it would be expedient that both the cases are heard and decided by one and the 4 same Court.
5. In the circumstances, detailed above, the under consideration transfer application is allowed.
The suit for restitution of conjugal rights, titled: Mushtaq Ahmad v. Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, pending in the Court of Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah, Judge, Family Court, Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat, is hereby withdrawn from the said learned Court and entrusted to the Court of Sheikh Ahmad Farooq, Judge, Family Court, Gujranwala, in whose Court the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage is already pending.
6. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.