This order shall dispose of the petition in hand, namely, Transfer Application No.435-C of 1989 and connected petition, namely, Transfer Application No.436-C of 1989.
2. Petitioner in both the petitions is Muhammad Akram. He was married to the respondent, Mst.
Amtul Nasir and four children were born out of their wedlock. Alleging that her marriage had come to an end but the petitioner still claimed to be her husband, the respondent filed a suit for jactitation of marriage at Gujranwala. She also brought a suit for maintenance on behalf of her minor son from the petitioner, namely, Atta-ul-Hayee, at Gujranwala. Petitioner seeks transfer of both the suits to Lahore.
3. Transfer Application No.435-C of 1989 relates to suit for jactitation of marriage and Transfer Application No.436-C of 1989 is with regard to the suit for maintenance.
4. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the respondent is not residing at Gujranwala and, therefore, the Courts at Gujranwala do not have jurisdiction to hear the suits. He has also averred that it will be unsafe and inconvenient for him to go to Gujranwala to defend the suits.
5. According to what has been said by the respondent in the plaints of the two suits, she is now permanently residing in Gujranwala and, therefore, the Courts siezed of the two suits have territorial jurisdiction to hear them. Whether or not her assertion in regard to her residence in Gujranwala is correct is a question of fact which will be determined by the Courts concerned if and when an objection in this behalf is raised before them. I cannot record a judicial finding in the matter while dealing with transfer applications and that too without evidence. It is not disputed that evidence is not recorded in such applications. If the petitioner ultimately succeeds in establishing before the Courts of Gujranwala that they have no jurisdiction to hear the suits, plaints therein will be returned for presentation before the Courts of competent jurisdiction. At this stage, therefore, plea of want of jurisdiction cannot he treated as a valid ground for the transfer of the suit.
6. As for the petitioner's averment that it will not be safe and convenient for him to go to Gujranwala to defend the suits, the same grievance is likely to be voiced by the respondent against the hearing of the suits at Lahore. There is a plenty of case-law laying down that in matrimonial disputes more weight is to be given to convenience of the female party than to that of the male party. Mst. Irshad Bibi v. Bashir Ahmad PLD 1978 Lah.518 is one of the authorities in point. It is, therefore, not possible for me to transfer the suits on the above plea. If the petitioner really apprehends danger at the hands of the respondent or anyone connected with her he may take out security proceedings before a criminal court of competent jurisdiction, is so advised.
7. As things stand at present, I see no good reason to transfer the suits referred to above and dismiss both the aforementioned petitions in limine.