2017 SCMR 321 Judgment Execution of Decree by Family Court : S. 5, Sched. & S. 13(3)—Decree for return of dowry articles, execution of—Return of gold ornaments or in the alternative their ‘prevailing market price’—Trial Court passed decree for return of dowry articles and after a period of about ten years during execution proceedings of said decree it was held that gold ornaments shall be paid either in the shape of golden ornaments or in alternative price thereof as per market value of the gold at the date of its payment—Plea of husband that executing court went beyond the terms of the decree by ordering the payment of price of golden ornaments at the prevalent market rate—Validity—Grant of relief regarding payment of price of golden ornaments at the prevalent market rate, in case the golden ornaments were not returned, was fully justified and it could not be said that it amounted to going beyond the terms of decree by the executing court—Per Umar Ata Bandial, J; agreeing: Husband had not delivered the decretal dowry articles to the wife—Under S.13(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the decree was liable to be implemented within 30 days,
however, in the present case even after the lapse of 12 years of passing of the decree, the husband had not deposited a single rupee with the Executing Court towards the adjustment of the said decree—Having been expressed in the alternative, the decree did not become a decree for money simpliciter for the amount stated therein, because the price of dowry articles fixed in the alternative by the decree under execution represented their market value as on the date of decree—Such market value of the decretal dowry articles could not remain static endlessly, therefore the alternative monetary direction in the decree could not remain fixed after lapse of reasonable time—Delay of more than 12 years in the execution of the decree on the basis of an inapplicable objection could not under the principles of equity, justice and fair play be allowed to defeat the decree under execution by the husband’s refusal to both deliver the dowry articles and also to pay their corresponding market value as on the date of payment—Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.