Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HUSSAIN BAKHSH VS Respondent: NASIM MAI And Another
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan Title: HUSSAIN BAKHSH vs NASIM MAI And Another Case No.: Writ Petition No.21000 of 2009 Date of Judgment:2010-05-14 Reported As: 2011 YLR 1141 Result: Case remanded
Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---The petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 10-7-2009 passed by learned Family Court and judgment and decree dated 1-10- 2009 passed by learned Addl. District Judge Bhakkar. 2. Facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that Mst. Nasim Mai respondent filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and return of dowry articles or in alternative its price Rs.2,43,500. The marriage between the parties was solemnized 7 years ago and a dead female child was born out of their wedlock. The petitioner turned her out from his house. The petitioner/defendant . Appeared and contested the suit, the learned. Trial Court framed six issues and after recording evidence of the parties and perusing the record, the learned Family Court decreed the suit and directed the petitioner/defendant to pay Rs.2,000 per month to the respondent her maintenance allowance from the date of institution of the still till the existence of Nikah and suit for recovery of dowry articles was decreed to' the extent of Rs.50,000. The said judgment and decree was assailed by the respondent/ plaintiff and the learned appeal Court accepted the appeal and decreed the suit for return of dowry articles or in alternative its price of Rs.2,43,500 as per list {{URDU TEXT}}). The petitioner/defendant assailed the judgment and decree of learned appeal Court through the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that learned appeal Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. He submits that it is an admitted fact between the parties that the marriage was solemnized 7 years ago from the date of institution of the suit and
---
## Page 2
the learned appeal Court has failed to appreciate that the dowry articles have lost their value. He further submits that the list ( ) is not exhibited on record and as such the same cannot be relied upon. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner has a weight when he submits that the marriage was solemnized 7 years ago from the date of institution of the suit and the dowry articles remained in use of both the parties and after the lapse of 7 years the value of the dowry articles are not which was claimed by the respondents. The learned appeal Court was bound to consider this fact that with the passage of time the house hold articles depreciates in value and the fact of depreciation of value of dowry articles should have been considered while granting the decree .For return of dowry articles or in alternative its price. The respondent herself has claimed that the value of dowry articles is Rs.2,43,500 but this value was 7 years before the date of decree. Learned counsel for the respondent has no answer to this fact. In view of this, this writ petition is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned appeal Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned ,appeal Court to consider the effect of depreciation in value of dowry article and after hearing the parties decided the suit on merits .