Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 1067 2026 SLD 1067 = 2026 SCMR 494
Supreme Appellate Court, Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 74 of 2025, decided on 20th August, 2025. (Against the Order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi in Writ Petition No. 3346 of 2018).
Presented By: Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
Ms. Farhana Qamar, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Asif Mukhtar Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th August, 2025.

SHAFQAT ALI ---Petitioner

VERSUS

Mst. ZAIB UN NISA and others ---Respondents

Law: Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 5

  Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of dower decreed to the extent of entitlement to Rs.100,000/---Executing court ordering recovery of gold ornaments at current market value---Legality---Executing court could direct payment of the current market value of gold ornaments if their return was not possible---Respondent No.1 filed a suit before the family court for recovery of dower, dowry articles, and maintenance of minor, which was decreed while declaring her entitled to seven tolas of gold or, in the alternative, Rs.100,000/- as dower---In execution, the family court ordered recovery of either seven tolas of gold or its current market value---The petitioner/husband challenged this in revision, which was allowed by the district court holding that the entitlement was confined to Rs.100,000/---In respondent s (wife s) constitutional petition, High Court set aside the revisional order and restored the family court s execution order, holding that she could recover the gold or its prevailing market value---The petitioner/husband then filed the present civil petition before the Supreme Court raising the question for determination as to Whether the decree entitling the respondent/wife to seven tolas of gold or in the alternative Rs.100,000/-, limits recovery to the fixed sum or allows recovery of the current market value of gold when return in specie is not possible ?---Held: High Court correctly appreciated the scope of the judgment and decree, the conduct of the parties, and the settled principle that, where a decree expressly afforded alternate modes of satisfaction, the decree-holder retained the liberty to exercise her choice---The contention that the Respondent No. 1 voluntarily sought amendment during execution proceeding was misconceived---The executing court s order maked it evident that the amendment was merely an addition of Rs. 100,000/- in consequence of the petitioner s objection, without in any way deleting, relinquishing or substituting the original stipulation of seven (07) tolas of gold---An executing court could direct payment of the current market value of gold ornaments if their return was not…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register