M.MAHBOOB AHMAD, CJ.~ By this judgment I propose to decide TA. No. 625-C of 1991 and TA.
No.'-717-C of 1991 as the two are between the same parties and pertain to same controversy. The first has been filed by Nur Ahmad Shahid, the husband, to seek transfer of respondent's suit for dissolution of marriage from Islamabad to Jhang whereas the second has been filed by Mst.
Naseem Bibi, the were, for seeking transfer of petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights from Jhang to Islamabad.
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of these briefcase stated, are that the petitioner and respondent, who are husband and were, on falling out, have respectively filed suits for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage, which are presently pending, respectively, before Mr. Ghulam Rasul' Ranjha, Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Jhang, and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Judge Family Court, Islamabad. Each of the parties is seeking transfer of the other suit.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions-
(i) that the marriage of the parties was performed at Jhang, to which place the parties belong, and, therefore, the two suits will be better tried at Jhang; and
(ii) that the Chairman of the Union Council has certified that the respondent-were is still living in Chak No. 262/Janubi, district Jhang, and therefore the respondent has filed the suit at Islamabad with mala fide intention.
On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted-
(i) that the petitioner for the last three years is residing at Islamabad. In support of this contention he has referred to the certificate issued by the Senate Secretariat and Assistant Director CDA certifying that the respondent alongwith her father Khushhal is living in Islamabad in Quarter No. 8/11C, G-9/2, Islamabad, for the last three years;
(ii) that it is well-settled that the were is entitled to file suit for dissolution by virtue of rule 6 of the Family Courts Rules, 1964, at a place where she is residing irrespective of the position where the marriage was performed; and
(iii) that common questions of law and facts are involved in the two suits and it will be in the interest of justice and to avoid conflict of judgments that the two suits are tried by one and the same Court.
4. Having given consideration to the controversy I am of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent have force. It is well-settled that the convenience of a lady-litigant in family disputes has to be given weight while deciding the place of adjudication of causes between husband and were. It is also well-settled that in order to avoid conflict of judgments suits of dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights between the same parties should be ^ tried by one and the same Court.
5. As regard the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is residing in a Chak of Jhang, I suffice by observing that the same Chairman who has issued the certificate in favour of the petitioner, has subsequently issued a certification that on reverification he has learnt that the respondent is not residing in the Chak and that she4s residing for the last three years at Islamabad.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, Transfer Application No. 625-C of 1991 is dismissed while T.A.
No. 717-C of 1991 is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.