' Mst. Tasleem Akhtar alias Pap is wife of the respondent, Abdul Aziz. She has made this petition for transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, brought against her by the respondent. That suit is pending before Mr. Hameed Jillani, Judge, Family Court, Vehari. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed a suit for jactitation of marriage, against the respondent, which is being heard by Mr. Mehmud Magbool Bajwa, Judge, Family Court, Samundri, District Faisalabad. The petitioner has prayed that the respondent's suit may also be transferred to the said Court at Samundri.
2. It has been contended by the petitioner that she is a pardahnashin lady, and apprehends danger at the hands of the respondent if she is obliged to go to Vehari to defend the suit brought against her. It has also been maintained by her that if the two suits are decided by the Courts in which they are now pending, conflicting decisions are likely to be given on the questions of law and facts involved therein. According to her the respondent is also a resident of Adda Maridwala, Tehsil Samundri, but has brought a "mala fide", false and fictitious suit at Vehari with a view to causing her harassm ent.
3. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent's suit is prior in time. It was also disclosed by him that in the respondent's suit the petitioner has raised the plea that she was not duly-wedded wife of the respondent and an issue in this regard has already been struck. According to him, the entire evidence has been recorded in the respondent's sit and it was at the stage of arguments when the petitioner brought the suit for jactitation of marriage, at Samundri. All these facts were admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Normally, petitions like one in hand are accepted by me but the instant petition is of a peculiar nature. Admittedly, the petitioner is already contesting the respondent's suit at Vehari which is now on the verge of decision. If she was a Pardahnashin lady or had difficulty in going to Vehari or she was afraid of some trouble at the hands of the respondent, she should have brought the suit for jactitation of marriage before the respondent had instituted his suit for restitution of conjugal rights or in any case immediately after the filing of that suit by the respondent. This was, however, not done by her. It has not been stated by her anywhere that the respondent has actually manhandled her at any stage of the proceedings which have so far taken place at Vehari. In view of the fact that the parties' evidence has been recorded, it appears that she has already engaged her counsel at Vehari. Whether or not she is legally-wedded wife of the respondent is a question which is subject- matter of one of the issues drawn up in the suit of the respondent and if that issue is decided in favour of the petitioner, the respondent's suit will be A dismissed, and there will be no need for the petitioner to prosecute her suit for jactitation of marriage. If the respondent's suit is transferred at this stage, all labour done by the parties in connection with the respondent's suit would go waste.
This would also delay finalization of matrimonial dispute of the parties. Such dispute, for obvious reasons, deserves to be decided quickly. The petitioner's suit is clearly a counterblast to the suit brought by the respondent. As explained above, this measure was thought of by the petitioner after a long delay. Keeping all these circumstances in view, I am not inclined to transfer the respondent's suit at this stage and dismiss her petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. The learned Family Judge who is trying the suit of the respondent shall decide it as soon as possible and in any case within two months of the receipt of the copy of this order.