Law:

Section:

Family Courts Act ( XXXV of 1964)--- ----Ss.12 & 14---Execution proceedings of decree for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower amount, articles and maintenance allowance---Decree of gold ornaments or its market value---Prevailing market price, question of---Interlocutory order---Appeal and constitution petition against interlocutory Order of Executing Court---Maintainability---Petitioner/Judgment debtor contended that Executing Court had wrongly directed him to deposit existing price of gold ornaments as prevailing market rate would be the one when the suit was instituted---Respondent/decree holder contended that prevailing market price would be the one when actually payment was to be made and that constitutional petition against order of Executing Court was not maintainable---Validity---Section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 provided that no appeal or revision was competent against the interlocutory order of the Family Court---Interlocutory order was not a "decision" within the meaning of S. 14 of Family Courts Act, 1964---Since the execution petition was pending in the present case and the same had not been decided, rather direction was made by the Executing Court for the deposit of the decreed amount, therefore, such order could not be held to be a "decision" within the meaning of S. 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964---Family Court while awarding the decree, had not mentioned the amount but referred the same as decree of 05 tolas of gold ornaments or its market value---Said gold ornaments remained unpaid for the last about eight years, the execution of the decree to that extent remained delayed---Market value of the gold would not remain static endlessly and the same would be considered at the time when it was actually paid to the decree holder, particularly in family matter---Prevalent market value of 5 tolas gold ornaments had already been deposited, therefore, High Court declined to order payment of market value of the gold when the same had been actually paid---No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned order of the Executing Court, constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. PLD 1999 Lah. 33; 1986 CLC 621; Haji…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492