M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, CJ.- By this judgment I propose*'to deal with the three transfer-applications, viz. TA. No. 536-C of 1993, TA. 537-C of 1993 and TA. No. 568-C of 1993, as all the three of them are between the same parties and in fact arise out of a family dispute between them:
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of these petitions, briefly stated, are that the petitioner herein, namely Mst. Ruqia Begum (Batool), is the wife of Muhammad Ishtiaq respondent. The parties have fallen out and as a result the petitioner; has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the respondent which is pending in the Court of Mr. Abdul Majeed Chaudhry, Judge Family Court, Lahore, whereas the respondent has filed four suits, one for restitution of conjugal rights which was being heard by Mr. Sakhi Muhammad Kahot, Judge Family Court Gujjar Khan, District Rawalpindi, second for recovery of furniture valuing Rs. 18,900/- which is pending before Mr. Waqar Ahmad, Civil Judge, Gujjar Khan, and is the subject-matter of TA.No. 536-C of 1993, third for recovery of ornaments valuing Rs. 20,000/- pending before Mr. Muhammad Sajid Ali, Civil Judge, Gujjar Khan, the subject-matter of TA.; No. 537-C of 1993, and the fourth suit for recovery of Rs.
32,000/- which is pending in the Court of Mr. Sakhi Muhammad Kahot, Civil Judge, Gujjar Khan, district Rawalpindi, and transfer of which has been sought through T.A. No. 568-C of 1993.
3. The transfer of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been sought for through TA. No. 363-C of 1993, which, through a separate judgment of even date, has been accepted by me and that the suit has been transferred from the Court of Mr. Sakhi Muhammad Kahot, Judge Family Court, Gujjar Khan, and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Abdul Majeed Chaudhry, Judge Family Court, Lahore.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the suits, transfer of which has been sought for through the transfer applications under consideration are the result of the family dispute and are intended only to cause harassment to the petitioner by the respondent, as is apparent from the fact that he has got all the suits entrusted to various Civil Judges which are being heard on different dates and the petitioner is being put to great inconvenience in travelling all the way from the Lahore to Gujjar Khan to defend herself in these suits.
The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being a Parda Nashin lady would undergo a grave hazard in travelling the long distance whereas the respondent will not suffer any such inconvenience as he, apart from being a male, will otherwise also have to come to Lahore to defend himself in the suit against him, he having not sought transfer of that suit.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has only contended that the family dispute-cases are being heard by a Judge Family Court whereas the suits sought to be transferred through these petitions are in the ordinary courts of civil jurisdiction and, therefore, there is no necessity that they should be heard by one and the same court.
6. Having given consideration to the respective contention raised on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have force. It is well- settled that suits regarding family disputes between the parties and such suits as may be the of- shoots of such disputes should better be tried by one and the same court to avoid conflict of judgments. It is also well-settled that the convenience of a lady litigant has to be given due consideration while deciding about the place of adjudication of disputes between wife and husband.
6. Adverting now to the only contention raised on behalf of the respondent, I would suffice by observing that no doubt the jurisdiction as regards family disputes and civil suits is different, but the fact that the presiding officer of a Family Court also is a Civil Judge, cannot be over-looked while deciding the controversies between wife and husband and, therefore, the plea raised on behalf of the respondent is not such as could be taken as an impedient in the way of transfer of civil suits between wife and husband to the same learned Civil Judge, who in his capacity as Family Court Judge is hearing the family disputes between them.
7. The entrustment of all the cases to one and the same Court is otherwise also conducive to effectual adjudication of the causes between the parties and will also cause less inconvenience to them.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I would allow these petitions and direct that the three suits afore-mentioned, all titled Muhammad Ishtiaq versus Mst. Ruqia Begum (Batool) for recovery of furniture valuing Rs. 18,900/-, for recovery of ornaments valuing Rs. 20,000/- and for recovery of Rs.
32.000/-, be respectively withdrawn from the Courts of Mr. Waqar Ahmad, Civil Judge, Gujjar Khan, Mr. Muhammad Sajid Ali, Civil Judge, Gujjar Khan, and Mr. Sakhi Muhammad Kahot, Civil Judge, Gujjar Khan, District Rawalpindi, and entrusted to the Court of Mr. Abdul Majeed Chaudhry, Civil Judge, Lahore, for adjudication in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
The parties shall appear before the transferee Court in all the three suits 5th December 1993.
The respective Courts from which the suits have been withdrawn, shall have the record transmitted to the transferee Court before the date of hearing fixed above.
The transferee Court is also directed to ensure that the same dated of hearing are given in the suits transferred vide this judgment as also in the suits between the parties relating to family dispute so that no extra-inconvenience is caused to them.