' By this judgment I propose to dispose of the following two transfer applications, because the questions involved in them are the same:
(i) T.A. No,63/90 Dr. Malik Iftikhar Ahmad v. Naghmana Gul.
(ii) TA. No, 109/90 Mst. Naghmana Gul v. Al-Haj Major Dr. Iftikhar Ahmed.
2. Mst.Naghmana Gul, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is the wife of Dr. Malik Iftikhar Ahmed, hereinafter called the respondent. Their Nikah was performed at Sargodha on 17-5-1985. Thereafter, they started living together and out of the wedlock, on 10-3-1986, a son namely Muhammad Waqar was born to them. Subsequently, it appears, the relations between the parties became strained and the petitioner left the house of the respondent and started living with her parents. On 11-7-1989 the respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner for the restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Sargodha, where it is pending trial. On 21-1-1990 the petitioner instituted two suits for dissolution of marriage and recovery of maintenance in the family Court at Lahore. These suits are being heard by Mehr Muhammad Nawaz, Judge Family Court, Lahore. On 27-1-1990 the respondent moved transfer application (No, 63/90) for the transfer of the petitioner's two aforementioned suits from Lahore to Sargodha. On the other hand, on 15-2- 1990, the petitioner also moved an application (No,109/90) for the transfer of the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights to the Family Court at Lahore where her suits for dissolution of marriage and recovery of maintenance were pending.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record.
4. To preclude the possibility of conflicting judgments, it is necessary that all the three suits are heard by one and the same Court. This is also the desire of the parties. The controversy between them, however, is limited to the question as to whether the said suits be tried at Sargodha or Lahore. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that as the Nikah between the parties was performed at Sargodha and they also resided there permanently, therefore, the suits should be tried by the Family Court at Sargodha who had the territorial jurisdiction in the matter.
Learned counsel further contended that the respondent's suit as well as his transfer application were instituted prior to the petitioner's suits and transfer application, therefore, on this account also he deserved a favourable decision. On the other hand it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent had forcibly turned her out of his house as a result of which she was compelled to shift to Lahore and live with her maternal grandmother and uncle. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was serving as a Senior Auditor in the Office of Accountant-General Pakistan Revenue, since 21-12-1988 and her son Muhammad Waqar was also studying in a local school. It was maintained that being a lady the petitioner would be put to immense Inconvenience the respondent's suit was not transferred from Sargodha to Lahore and she was compelled to pursue her cases at Sargodha. In support of his contentions, learned counsel cited Mst. Bashiran v. Sultan (1984 CLC 2306), Tasleem Akhtar v. Hafadat (1984 CLC 2301) and Mst. Bilqees v. Ghulam Mohy- ud-Din (1985 CLC 1868).
6. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on Iqbal Begum v. Abdul Hameed PLD 1978 Lah.
993(2) to urge that the subsequently instituted suits of the respondent should be transferred to Sargodha where the respondent's earlier instituted suit was pending.
7. There is no hard and fast rule which lays down that a subsequently instituted suit should always be transferred to the place where the earlier-in-time A suit is pending. The Courts have to see the convenience of the parties and, in that perspective, have to determine the most appropriate place where the suits between them should be tried. In the present case, prima facie, the Family Court at Lahore has the jurisdiction to try the petitioner's suits for dissolution of marriage and recovery of maintenance. The petitioner has placed on record an affidavit to the effect that she resides and works in Lahore. She has also placed on record her letter of appointment. The respondent has not controverted these assertions by way of any counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondent sought some time to verify this fact which was granted to him. Later on he confirmed that the petitioner is working as Senior Auditor in the Office of the Accountant-General of Pakistan Revenue, at Lahore. It is thus an admitted fact that the petitioner ordinarily resides and works in Lahore. She has also to look after her son who is living with her and studying in a local school. In these circumstance if she is compelled to go to Sargodha on each date of hearing in connection with the three suits between the parties, it is not difficult to imagine the enormity of her inconvenience and bother. On the other hand if the respondent's suit is transferred to Lahore the respondent's inconvenience would not be as disturbing as that of the petitioner. Besides, superior Courts have consistently held that in matters of transfer of family suits from one place to another, convenience of a lady litigant would be a dominant factor and the husband would have no edge for seeking transfer of the case of his wife merely on the ground that he had instituted the suit earlier in time. In this connection the cases of Irfana Pal v. Javed Akhtar (1982 CLC 7), Muhammad Ilyas v. Mst.
Zarina (PLD 1983 Lah. 462) and Shahnaz Akhtar v. Manzoor Ali (1986 MLD 672) may be cited for facility of reference. I am further of the view that a wife's request for the transfer of her husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights to the Court where her suit for dissolution of marriage is pending, should not ordinarily be turned down unless the request on the very face of it appears to suffering from mala fides.
8. As a result of the above discussion I accept the petitioner's application and order the transfer of respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights from the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Sargodha to the Court of Mehr Muhammad Nawaz, Judge Family Court, Lahore who is seized of the petitioner's suits for dissolution of marriage and recovery of maintenance. The respondent's application stands dismissed. The learned Judge Family Court/Senior Civil Judge Sargodha is directed to immediately send the file of the case to the learned transferee Court through proper channel. All these three suits shall be heard together at Lahore and disposed of as early as possible.
8-A. Both the transfer applications are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.