' This petition under section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, seeks transfer of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, titled Azam Humayun v. Rubina Azam, from the Court of Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Buttar, Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi, to the Court of Mr. Nazeer Aqeel, Judge Family Court, Multan, before whom the petitioner's suit against the respondent for dissolution of marriage is pending.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions in support of the petition--
(i) That although the marriage of the parties was performed at Abbottabad the petitioner is now permanently residing with her parents at Multan and that is why she has instituted a second suit for dissolution of marriage at Multan, the earlier suit filed for the same purpose at Lahore having been withdrawn as no conciliation between the parties could take place. In the same context, it is submitted that the suit was withdrawn from the Court at Lahore on the intervention of the sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner and with the hope that better relations might emerge between the spouses;
(ii) that common questions of law and facts are likely to be involved in the two suits between the parties and, therefore, in order to avoid conflict of judgments, it is desirable that the two suits are tried by one and the same Court;
(iii) that the petitioner is a Parda Nashin lady and would be put to greater inconvenience if she is made to go all the way from Multan to Rawalpindi to defend herself there whereas the respondent will not suffer such an inconvenience he, apart from being male, will have to go to Multan to defend himself there, he having not sought transfer of the petitioner's suit; and
(iv) that the petitioner apprehends danger to her life if she goes to Rawalpindi.
3. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended--
(i) that the suit of the respondent is earlier in time qua the suit of the petitioner filed at Multan;
(ii) that the petitioner in her earlier suit for dissolution of marriage, filed at Lahore, had stated that she is ordinarily residing at Lahore whereas in the plaint, filed at Multan, there is no such averment; and
(iii) That the petitioner is not residing at Multan and has been residing in . The YWCA Hostel, Lahore.
4. Having given consideration to the controversy, I am of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the .Petitioner have force. It is well-settled that family disputes between the same parties should be better adjudicated upon by one and the same Court and the better place for adjudication of such causes is the place where the wife has instituted the suit and that the filing of a suit earlier by a husband is not an impediment in the way of transfer of his suit to a place where the wife has subsequently instituted the proceedings.
5. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner is residing at Lahore, is concerned, I would suffice by observing that in the plaint of the respondent himself the petitioner has been sued at her Multan address. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to para. 5 of the plaint of the respondent instituted at Rawalpindi wherein he has admitted that when he was posted at Dera Ismail Khan the petitioner went to Multan to spend few days with her parents with the permission of the respondent but did not return. The above two factors clearly indicate that there is an admission on the part of the respondent that the petitioner is residing at Multan. In so far as the assertion made on part of the respondent that the petitioner is residing in YWCA Hostel, Lahore, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate this assertion.
In the face of the aforementioned two circumstances, I cannot give any weight to this submission.
6. Be that as it may, rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, gives an entitlement to the wife to institute a suit for dissolution of marriage at a place where she is residing and that right cannot be lightly taken away. The right having been exercised by the petitioner, the suit of the respondent can also effectually be adjudicated upon at Multan as in the suit of the petitioner and that of the respondent common questions of law and facts are bound to arise.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, I allow this petition and direct that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, titled Azam Humayun v. Rubina Azam, be withdrawn from the Court of Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Buttar, Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi, and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Nazir Aqeel, Judge Family Court, Multan, for adjudication in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
' The parties shall appear before the transferee Court at Multan in the suit transferred on the 1st of December, 1993.
' The Court at Rawalpindi from which the suit has been withdrawn shall ensure that the record of the case transferred reaches the transferee Court well in advance of the date fixed above.
' It is further directed that the transferee Court shall in future give same dates of hearing in the two suits between the parties so that no extra-inconvenience is caused to them.
Suit transferred.