P L D 1986 Lahore 52 (PLP)

Petitioner was sued out by his ex‑wife, the respondent herein, for recovery of her dowry articles and in the alternate for payment of Rs. 24,940 as the price thereof. In his written statement petitioner denied that she bad brought any dowry to his house. The only issues framed in consequence of the pleadings of the parties are :‑ (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the articles of dowry or the suit amount as price of dowry ?

0. P. P (2) Relief. Trial Court decreed her suit with the finding, reached on the basis of the evidence on record, that the claimed dowry articles of the plaintiff respondent are still lying in the house of the petitioner. Consequently, her suit for return of those articles and. alternatively, for payment of Rs.24,940 as the price thereof, was decreed. Petitioner's appeal there against has been dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge by affirming the trial Court's finding on the aforesaid issue. He has now come up to this Court on revision.

2. Learned counsel has conceded before me that on the concurrent findings reached by the two Courts below the plaintiff was entitled to the grant of decree but contended that the decree may not have been passed for any amount exceeding Rs. 5,000 because such was the restriction imposed under section 3 of the Dowry and Bridal Gifts Restriction Act of 1976 which also provides in its section 9 that a dowry given or accepted in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be forfeited to the Federal Government. Learned counsel, however, admits that there was never in fact passed any order of forfeiture regarding the dowry of the respondent and I do not see how may this provision either entitle the petitioner to retain the articles worth more than the prescribed value or disentitle the respondent‑plaintiff from urging her claim for the return thereof and in the alternate for payment of its price beyond that value 2 Infringement of the provisions of the Act may well render the concerned person liable to the penalties provided thereunder but the petitioner cannot resist the claim of the lady with reference to the above Act. Contention of the learned counsel is, therefore, repelled.

3. Learned counsel has next argued that the price of dowry articles has not been satisfactorily proved on the record to be so much as has been decreed against the petitioner and, therefore, the money‑decree passed against the petitioner is not sustainable. I have noticed that in his written statement the petitioner did not contest the valuation stated by the res pondent and thus the question of price of the dowry articles was not raised for determination. Even in his appeal, below, petitioner did not contest the trial Court's decree on the plea that the value put at those articles may either be incorrect or excessive. Hence, petitioner cannot be allowed at this stage to raise an unpleaded case and consequently this contention of the learned counsel is also repelled.

4. There is no case made out for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence dismissed in limine. M. Y. H. Petition. dismissed.