Ambreen Gohar etc. vs Adj etc.

Stereo. H C J D A-38.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No.5648 of 2022 Ambreen Gohar & others Versus Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan & others

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 12.10.2026.

Petitioners by: Mr. Shahbaz Murtaza Ansari, Advocate. Petitioner No.1 in person.

Respondents by: Syed Azhar Abbas Hyder Bukhari, Advocate (for respondent No.3).

Respondent No.3 in person.

MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.:- Through this petition, the petitioners have assailed the judgments and decrees dated 26.02.2019 and 07.05.2019, passed by the learned Judge Family Court and the learned Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan, respectively, whereby the suit for recovery of maintenance allowance, dowry articles and delivery expenses filed by the petitioners was partly decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, and the decree was subsequently modified by the learned Appellate Court.

2.Briefly stated, the petitioners instituted a suit against respondent No.3, Saqib Ali, for recovery of maintenance allowance, delivery expenses and dowry articles. The learned Judge Family Court, vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2019, partly decreed the suit, including a decree for delivery of the dowry articles specified in the list or, in the alternative, payment of Rs.550,000. Both parties challenged the said judgment and decree before the learned Appellate Court. Vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 07.05.2019, the appeal filed by respondent No.3 was dismissed, whereas the alternate value of the dowry articles was enhanced from Rs.550,000 to Rs.800,000. The petitioners, however, remain dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees.

W.P. No.5648 of 2022

3.It is pertinent to mention that respondent No.3 had also instituted W.P. No.10048 of 2019, challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees. The said connected petition has been partly allowed by this Court vide order of even date, in view of the statement made by the petitioner Mst. Ambreen Gohar on Special Oath. Upon being confronted with the offer made by respondent No.3 that he would not press his petition, subject to her taking a Special Oath regarding the gold ornaments, petitioner stated on oath that only the maala was in her possession and that the remaining gold ornaments were with respondent No.3. In view of the said statement, respondent No.3 expressed his satisfaction regarding her claim to the extent of the gold ornaments and did not press his petition in that regard, subject to the corresponding modification of the impugned judgments and decrees. The connected petition was accordingly partly allowed, with the express stipulation that the remaining decree would remain intact, subject to decision of instant petition.

4.In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the parties have confined their arguments to the extent of determination of the market value of the remaining gold ornaments, excluding the maala admitted by petitioner No.1 to be in her possession. Accordingly, in terms of the order passed in the connected petition, the controversy is confined to the monetary valuation of the remaining gold ornaments, while the remaining decree shall remain intact.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the monetary value of the remaining gold ornaments has neither been separately nor adequately determined. He submits that, as gold is a commodity whose market price fluctuates and is readily ascertainable, the petitioners should not be confined to an inadequate historical valuation where return of the ornaments in specie is not possible. Rather, they are entitled to compensation based on the legally applicable market value of their established entitlement. In support, he has referred to Shafqat Ali v. Mst. Zaib-un-Nisa and others (2026

W.P. No.5648 of 2022

SCMR 494) and Mst. Zaib-un-Nisa and others v. Additional District Judge, Taxila and others (2025 CLC 1048).

6.Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the valuation must be determined in accordance with the terms of the decree, the relief claimed, the evidence available on record and the legally relevant date. He argues that entitlement to the current market value cannot be presumed merely because the price of gold has fluctuated. In support, he has referred to Mst. Mehbooba v. Abdul Jalal (1996 SCMR 1063), Shafqat Ali v. Mst. Zaib-un-Nisa and others (2026 SCMR 494), Shahid Mehmood v. Mst. Naureen Ijaz and 2 others (2012 MLD 1594) and Mansoor Ali v. Mst. Anam Hussain and 3 others (2026 YLR 2051).

7.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record in the light of their respective submissions and the authorities cited at the Bar. The controversy requires consideration of two related but distinct matters: first, the effect of the decree and the nature of the entitlement to the gold ornaments; and, second, the legally applicable basis and date for determining their monetary value where delivery in specie is not effected. These matters cannot appropriately be resolved by adopting either party’s proposed valuation without an assessment of the relevant record and the governing legal principles.

8.The controversy may appropriately be examined in the light of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mst. Ayesha Shaheen v. Khalid Mehmood and another (2013 SCMR 1049). In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a wife is entitled under a decree to recover specified gold ornaments, the decree may be satisfied either by delivery of the gold itself or, where the husband is unable to provide the same, by payment of an amount sufficient to enable the decree-holder to purchase equivalent gold from the open market. The Court further held that, unlike other movable or immovable property, the market value of gold does not pose any particular difficulty of determination, as its rate is fixed by

W.P. No.5648 of 2022

the gold market on a daily basis and it is readily exchangeable for cash. Accordingly, where a decree provides for delivery of gold or its monetary value, the value is to be determined with reference to the date of payment, so that the decree may be fully satisfied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also distinguished Mst. Mehbooba v. Abdul Jalal (1996 SCMR 1063) in reaching this conclusion.

9.The aforesaid principle was reiterated in Shafqat Ali v. Mst. Zaib-un-Nisa and others (2026 SCMR 494), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the direction for recovery of the current market value of seven tolas of gold where its return in specie was not possible. It was held that, where a decree provides alternative modes of satisfaction, the decree-holder retains the liberty to choose between them, and the Court must give effect to the true intent underlying the decree. The mere inclusion of a fixed monetary amount as an alternative does not, by itself, extinguish the entitlement to the specified quantity of gold where the decree has not substituted or relinquished that entitlement. These authorities establish that, where the decree recognises an entitlement to specified gold ornaments and their return is not possible, payment of their current market value is an appropriate mode of satisfaction.

10.In the present case, the learned Family Court decreed the claim for delivery of the dowry articles, including the gold ornaments, or payment of their alternate value, while the learned Appellate Court enhanced the aggregate alternate value of the dowry articles from Rs.550,000/- to Rs.800,000/-. However, the claim for gold ornaments cannot be treated as extinguished merely because an aggregate monetary value was fixed for the dowry articles. The legal effect of the decree must be determined in the light of its terms and the entitlement actually established therein. The aggregate value of Rs.1,815,695/- claimed for all dowry articles cannot, without supporting evidence, be treated as the value of the gold ornaments alone.

W.P. No.5648 of 2022

11.An important subsequent development is that, in connected W.P. No.10048 of 2019, this Court, vide order of even date, accepted the statement made by the petitioner Mst. Ambreen Gohar on Special Oath that the maala was in her possession, whereas the remaining gold ornaments were with respondent No.3. In consequence, the connected petition was partly allowed, with the remaining decree expressly kept intact, subject to outcome of this petition. The maala must, therefore, be excluded from the present determination. The remaining gold ornaments, to the extent their delivery is decreed and their return in specie is not possible, remain subject to satisfaction in accordance with the applicable legal principles.

12.In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the monetary value of the remaining gold ornaments, where payable in lieu of delivery, cannot be confined merely to an earlier or nominal figure if that would not satisfy the entitlement recognised by the decree. In such circumstances, the decree-holder is entitled to the current market value of the gold ornaments, assessed with reference to the date of payment. This does not, however, authorise enlargement of the decree or creation of an entitlement to gold not established by the pleadings, evidence or decree. The quantity and description of the ornaments for which monetary satisfaction is to be ordered must remain confined to the entitlement already adjudicated. The impugned judgment and decree, to the extent that the aggregate alternate value fixed therein would otherwise operate to restrict the decree-holder to a sum that does not give effect to the established entitlement to the remaining gold ornaments, cannot be sustained.

13.For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed to the extent stated above. The judgment and decree dated 07.05.2019, passed by the learned Appellate Court, are modified to the limited extent that, insofar as the remaining gold ornaments, excluding the maala admitted to be in the possession of the petitioner Mst. Ambreen Gohar, are concerned, respondent No.3 shall satisfy the decree either

W.P. No.5648 of 2022

by delivery of the ornaments in accordance with the entitlement established under the decree or, where delivery in specie is not possible, by payment of their current market value determined with reference to the date of payment. The determination shall be confined to the quantity and description of the gold ornaments established by the existing decree and record, and shall not reopen or enlarge the adjudicated entitlement. The learned Executing Court may undertake such lawful inquiry as is necessary to calculate the amount payable in accordance with this direction. The remaining decree, including the relief relating to maintenance allowance, delivery expenses and other dowry articles, shall remain intact in terms of the order passed in connected W.P. No.10048 of 2019. No order as to costs.

(Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

Judge

*A.H.S.*