MAIN CASE C.M. NO. 2/2013 ' The instant petition calls into question the judgment dated 16.11.2012 passed by the learned Addl.
District Judge, Lahore (Respondent No, 1) and the orders dated 12.09.2012, 17.11.2012 and 12.12.2012 passed by the learned executing Court/Judge Family Court, Lahore (Respondent No, 2) in respect of the execution proceedings filed by Respondent No, 3 against the petitioner vis-a-vis the decrees dated 10.05.2011 & 16.11.2011 passed in favour of Respondent No, 3 in her suit for recovery of dowry.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were married but their marriage did not last with the result that Respondent No, 3 sued the petitioner for return of her dowry.
Respondent No, 3's suit was partially decreed in her favour through the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2011 in that she was allowed to recover her dowry as per the list of dowry (Exh.P4) or Rs, 60,000/- in lieu thereof. The petitioner did not file an appeal against the decree dated 10.05.2011, however, upon Respondent No, 3's appeal the amount to be paid in lieu of dowry was enhanced from Rs, 60,000/- to Rs, 100,000/- by the learned appellate Court through the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2011.
3. Further submits that an execution petition was filed by Respondent No, 3 and during the course of proceedings therein the petitioner tried to handover to Respondent No, 3 her items of dowry, however, Respondent No, 3's father/attorney refused to receive back the dowry by stating that the items which the petitioner was trying to return to Respondent No, 3 were not part of Respondent No, 3's dowry but were some other items. The matter subsequently came up before Respondent No, 2 when Respondent No, 3 prayed that she may be compensated by payment of Rs, 100,000/- in lieu of her dowry. Respondent No, 2 held accordingly through the impugned order dated 12.9.2012.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision petition before Respondent No, 1, which was dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2012, where-after Respondent No, 2 passed the impugned orders dated 17.11.2012 and 12.12.2012 for issuance of warrants of arrest of the petitioner.
4. Contends that Respondents No, 1 & 2 erred whilst passing the impugned judgment/orders inasmuch as the petitioner has always been willing to return Respondent No, 3's dowry but she has refused to accept the same on the basis of the flimsy excuse that the items which the petitioner tried to return to her do not form part of her dowry. Contends that as long as the petitioner is willing to handover the dowry to Respondent No, 3 she cannot claim its alternate value. Further contends that the impugned judgment/orders have been passed by mis-appreciation of facts and mis- application of the law.
5. Contends that under the law the petitioner would be only liable to pay the alternate value of the dowry if the petitioner fails to return the dowry to Respondent No, 3, however, in the instant case, as already stated, the petitioner is willing to handover the dowry. The impugned judgment/orders have, therefore, been passed illegally and with material irregularity.
6. The learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 controverts the stance of the petitioner and submits that Respondent No, 3 had clearly prayed for return of her dowry and in absence thereof the alternate value thereof. The decree was passed in favour of Respondent No, 3 for return of her dowry as per Exh.P4 or Rs, 100,000/- in lieu thereof During the course of execution proceedings Respondent No, 2 directed the petitioner to handover Respondent No, 3's dowry and for this purpose a bailiff was appointed. On the appointed date the father/attorney of Respondent No, 3 went to receive back Respondent No, 3's dowry, however, to his surprise it was noted that the items which the petitioner was trying to handover as the dowry of Respondent No, 3 were not in fact part of her dowry but were some other items. Respondent No, 3's father/attorney registered his protest with the bailiff and declined to accept the items being offered by the petitioner as Respondent No, 3's dowry.
7. Further submits that the petitioner in fact has failed to deliver Respondent No, 3's dowry to her, therefore, she is entitled to recover Rs, 100,000/- from the petitioner as the alternate value thereof in terms of the decree passed in her favour. Prays that the petition may be dismissed.
8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. I find that Respondent No, 3 through her suit had prayed that a decree may be passed in her favour directing the petitioner to handover her dowry as per the list of dowry and in case the items of dowry had been destroyed or were not available then she may be compensated by way of payment of Rs, 250,000/-. Respondent No, 3's suit was partially decreed in the terms that she was allowed to receive back her dowry as per Exh.P4 or Rs, 100,000/- in lieu thereof.
Interestingly enough during the trial of the suit the petitioner took up the defence that Respondent No, 3 brought only a few items with her as part of her dowry. And those few items were used by the parties and are lying with him in a very rough condition. These facts have been noted by the learned trial Court in the judgment dated 10.05.2011. It is, therefore, evident that to begin with the petitioner tried to deny the existence of Respondent No, 3's dowry and thereafter during the course of his evidence he took up the plea that whatever few items of dowry were brought by Respondent No, 3 are lying with him in a very rough condition. The above pleas raised by the petitioner were turned down by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned appellate Court and thus a decree was passed against him for return of dowry or Rs, 100,000/- in lieu thereof. As the petitioner himself admitted during the course of the proceedings of the suit that the items of dowry of Respondent No, 3 are in a very rough condition, therefore, I feel that she is justified in insisting upon being compensated in terms of money as her dowry on the petitioner's own admission either does not exist or is in a very bad condition.
9. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment/orders.
10. The instant petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly.