| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2069 2023 SLD 2069 = 2023 PLD 699 |
Write Petition No. 57778 of 2022, heard on 26th April, 2023.
Before Anwaar Hussain, J
Abdul Razzaq Younas for Petitioner. Muhammad Younas Bhullar for
Respondents Nos.3 and 4. Date of hearing: 26th April, 2023.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL---Petitioner
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 3 others---Respondents
Law: Family Courts Act, 1964
Section: 5
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S. 5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of dowry articles---Husband's (petitioner) case was that there was no evidence that the car was given at the time of marriage as part of the dowry and that the Appellate Court had wrongly decreed the suit--Validity---Petitioner in response to the respondent's (wife) plaint had stated that the car was purchased with the cash provided by him, as such, it was also registered in his name in token of acknowledgment---Response of the petitioner, in his written statement, had exhibited an admission on part of the petitioner that the car, in fact, was purchased and transferred in the name of the petitioner, at the time of wedding, albeit with cash amount given by the petitioner---Petitioner had not proved his stance by leading any evidence---Moreover, there was no explanation as to why the petitioner remained mum and did not demand the delivery of the car, from the father of respondent for a considerable period of time, when the marriage between the parties was subsisting and the relationship was cordial, therefore, the assertion of petitioner that no such car was ever purchased or delivered to the petitioner was baseless and hence, discarded---Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.
(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S. 5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of dowry articles---Alternate price of dowry articles---Appreciation of value of dowry articles---Scope---Husband's (petitioner) case was that there was no evidence that the car was given at the time of marriage as part of the dowry and that the Appellate Court had wrongly decreed the suit--Wife's (respondent) case was that alternate price of the car had not been properly determined/ascertained by the Appellate Court and the prayer was made for award of current market value of the car and not the date on which it was given---Validity--In case of articles such as the car, while determining/ascertaining amount of money as an alternate price, the principle of appreciation should be kept in mind inasmuch as if the principle of depreciation is to be considered with respect to one set of the dowry articles such as furniture, etc., which involves depreciation of articles on account of wear and tear, the principle of appreciation must also be taken into account with respect to such other articles that involve increase in value--Failure to do so would not only by iniquitous but would also put premium on the unlawful retention of such dowry articles by the husband even after the dissolution of marriage or demand for return of the same by the wife---Wife was held entitled to recover the market value of the car as on the date of realization of the decree--Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.
(c) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----S. 5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of dowry articles---Alternate price of dowry articles---Appreciation and depreciation of value of dowry articles---Scope--Primarily a suit for the return of dowry articles, whenever decided, is decreed by the Courts as such with the observation that in case of failure, on the part of the judgment-debtor, to return the said articles, as an alternate, the amount equivalent to the price of dowry articles is to be paid and while determining the alternate value of the dowry articles, the Courts consider the depreciation of most of the dowry articles on account of normal and natural wear and tear thereof that takes place over the passage of time since marriage of the parties---Rationale underlying the application of principle of depreciation is that the dowry articles are to be returned in their current position and if the same is not done, their price is to be paid as an alternate and since most of the value of dowry articles put to use during subsistence of marriage do undergo depreciation on account of daily use, therefore, while determining the alternate price, it is justifiable that the depreciation in value of such articles is to be taken into account---However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that there may be some articles forming part of the dowry, for instance, the gold ornaments or the vehicles or even few electrical appliances, etc., value whereof may appreciate over the years.