 |
| 2026 scmr 494 haqmahar, gold or amount. |
📘 سپریم کورٹ فیصلہ:
مہر (سونا یا رقم) اور موجودہ مارکیٹ ویلیو کا اصول
⚖️ مقدمے کا پس منظر
⚖️ عدالتی کارروائی
📌 سپریم کورٹ کے اہم مشاہدات
⚖️ قانونی اصول
📌 نتیجہ
Must read Judgement.
2026 SCMR 494
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Amin-ud-Din Khan and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
SHAFQAT ALI-Petitioner
Versus
Mst. ZAIB UN NISA and others-Respondents
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).
(a) 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) cons '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 possible--Impugned judgment neither suffered from legal error nor reflected any perversity or misapplication of settled law-On the contrary, it reinforced the principle that the court must give effect to the true intent underlying decree and the contract from which it flew-Impugned judgment was well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and law-No illegality, perversity, or misreading and non-reading of evidence had been found in the impugned judgment-Accordingly, the instant petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan-
-Art.199-Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), 5.5, Sched.---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court-Scope The constitutional courts exercise only limited supervisory jurisdiction and cannot re-appraise evidence or substitute their own opinion for that of the appellate court-Once a matter has been adjudicated upon facts by the trial and the appellate courts, constitutional courts should not exceed their powers by re-evaluating the facts or substituting the appellate court's opinion with their own--The acceptance of finality of the appellate court's finding is essential for achieving closure in legal proceedings conclusively resolving disputes, preventing unnecessary litigation, lon and upholding upholding the legislatur legislature's intent to provide a definitive resolution through existing appeal mechanism.
M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari and others 2023 SCMR 1434 rel
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.