Summary: Issues:The validity and enforceability of the Agreement stipulating a dower amount of Rs.4,000,000/- in case of divorce.--2)Whether the Agreement imposed a stringent condition on divorce that is not sustainable under the law.-----Judgment:The Lahore High Court held that the Agreement was lawfully executed and that the stipulation of Rs.4,000,000/- as dower in case of divorce was not a stringent condition imposed to keep the parties in the marriage bond. Instead, it was an enhancement of the dower amount by the husband, permissible and executable under the law. The court dismissed the petitioner's Writ Petition challenging the increased dower amount and also noted the respondents' withdrawal of their connected petition seeking enhancement of maintenance allowance or alternative price of the dowry articles.----Rationale:The court relied on precedents affirming that the dower amount can be fixed or increased before, at the time of, or after marriage. The Agreement's stipulation for an increased dower in case of divorce was seen as an enhancement, not as a punitive or restrictive condition against divorce. The petitioner's failure to challenge the initial judgments and decrees regarding maintenance allowance, dowry articles, and delivery expenses meant those findings were final against him.---Citations and Precedents Relied by the Court:Muhammad Bashir Ali Siddiqui Vs. Mst. Sarwar Jahan Begum and another (2008 SCMR 186): This Supreme Court case was referenced to address the issue of whether a condition in a marital agreement, which imposes a stringent requirement on divorce, is sustainable under the law. The Supreme Court in this case established that conditions that unduly restrict divorce or impose harsh penalties on it are not favored in Islamic law.--Muhammad Asif Vs. Mst. Nazia Riasat and 2 others (2018 CLC 1844): This case was cited to further elucidate the point made in Muhammad Bashir Ali Siddiqui's case regarding stringent conditions on divorce. It reinforced the principle that while agreements between spouses regarding dower and other marital rights are generally enforceable, they should not be structured in a way that makes divorce unduly burdensome for either party.--Ghania Hassan Vs. Shahid Hussain Shahid and another (2016 SCMR 2170): The Supreme Court in this case affirmed that dower can be fixed at any time before, at the time of, or after marriage, and it can also be increased post-marriage. This precedent supported the court's view that the enhancement of dower in the Agreement was within legal bounds.--Mst. Naziran Begum through Legal Heirs Vs. Mst. Khurshid Begum through Legal Heirs (1999 SCMR 1171): This Supreme Court judgment reiterated that under Hanafi law, a husband is entitled to fix or increase the dower amount at any time, highlighting the flexibility in determining dower within Islamic jurisprudence.--Mst. Zainab Khatoon Vs. Amir Abdullah Khan (PLD 2004 Lahore 330): The Lahore High Court in this case distinguished between conditions that are in restraint of marriage and those that simply provide for consequences (such as enhanced dower) in certain eventualities like divorce or remarriage, finding the latter to be permissible.--Mst. Shahida Adeeb and another Vs. Nauman Ejaz and another (2007 CLC 1160): This Division Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court affirmed that a husband can increase the dower amount at any time during the marriage, and such an increase does not require elaborate formalities to be enforceable.Notable Quotes from the Judge: ''Enhancement of dower amount after marriage is not only permissible but also executable under law and it is not a stringent condition to be imposed to keep the parties in marriage tie.''

Summary: (a) Family Law ----Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (DMMA)---- ----Ss. 2 & 5----Family Courts Act, 1964 (FCA)----S. 10(5)---- Khula vs. dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty—Court’s authority to convert dissolution into khula ----A Muslim woman can seek dissolution of marriage on statutory grounds under the DMMA or seek khula, which is an independent right—Trial court erred in converting dissolution on grounds of cruelty into khula without the woman’s consent—Khula is a special and exclusive right of a woman, which must be explicitly and unequivocally sought by her—Under S. 10(5) of the FCA, waiver of dower is a consequence of khula, but a woman cannot be forced to forgo her dower unless she voluntarily seeks khula—Court held that trial and appellate courts misapplied the law by granting khula when the wife never sought it, leading to wrongful waiver of her dower—Legal distinction between dissolution under DMMA and khula must be maintained. (b) Divorce ----Dissolution of marriage—Talaq—Proof of divorce---- Petitioner denied pronouncing talaq, but evidence established that divorce was given in the presence of a jirga and at a police station—Statements of PW-4 and PW-5 corroborated the wife’s claim, and no cross-examination was conducted to rebut these claims—Held, trial and appellate courts failed to give a definitive finding on the existence of talaq, despite available evidence—High Court correctly found that talaq had already been pronounced, and granting khula was unnecessary. (c) Dower Rights ----Effect of divorce on dower—Right of a Muslim woman to retain dower---- Khula results in waiver of dower, whereas dissolution of marriage on statutory grounds does not—Since the wife did not seek khula, and talaq was already pronounced, she remained entitled to her dower, which was half of a portion of the house—Court ruled that denying her dower was unjustified, as dissolution on the ground of cruelty under the DMMA does not affect dower rights (S. 5, DMMA). (d) Maintenance & Dowry Articles ----Grant and enhancement of maintenance---- Maintenance awarded to wife and minor child, with an increase in past maintenance and iddat period maintenance by the appellate court—Trial court also granted Rs. 15,000 for dowry articles, which was later enhanced—Held, factual findings of trial and appellate courts regarding maintenance and dowry were justified—No interference warranted by the Supreme Court. (e) Legislative History ----Historical background of the DMMA—Evolution of Muslim women’s rights in divorce cases---- Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, was a progressive legislative reform that granted Muslim women greater divorce rights—Before its enactment, Hanafi jurisprudence required the husband’s consent for khula, which was deemed contrary to principles of justice—Statute provides specific grounds for dissolution without requiring the husband’s approval, distinguishing it from khula. (f) Final Disposition Petitions dismissed—Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision—Held that Respondent No.1 was rightfully entitled to dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, and her right to dower was protected—Factual findings regarding maintenance and dowry articles required no interference—Trial and appellate courts erred in converting dissolution into khula, leading to an incorrect waiver of dower, which was rectified by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. Cited Cases: • Khurshid Bibi v. Muhammad Amin (PLD 1967 SC 97) • Haji Saif-ur-Rahman v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1994 FSC 10) • Muhammad Siddiq v. Mst. Sughra Bibi (PLD 2008 SC 95) • Mukhtar Ahmed v. Mst. Nargis Bibi (PLD 2009 SC 205) • M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Rubina Yasmeen (PLD 2015 SC 302)

Summary: Issues:Whether the Chairman Union Council in Lahore has jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings of the petitioner, who resides in Germany.--The applicability of S.R.O.No.1086(K)61, enabling Pakistani Missions abroad to act as Arbitration Councils for Overseas Pakistanis, in light of the Islamabad High Court's ruling in Writ Petition No.21 of 2021.----Judgment:The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Chairman Union Council's denial of the divorce effectiveness certificate was lawful. The court reasoned that:The jurisdiction for divorce matters lies with the Union Council where the wife was residing at the time of the divorce pronouncement. In this case, both the petitioner and his wife were residing in Germany, placing the jurisdiction with the Pakistani Mission in Germany as per S.R.O.No.1086(K)61.The Islamabad High Court's ruling striking down the S.R.O. does not affect its applicability in Punjab, as judicial decisions are confined to the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court.----Conclusion:The Lahore High Court found that the Union Council in Lahore lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner's divorce proceedings, given the couple's residence in Germany. The court upheld the procedural requirements and jurisdictional mandates of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and associated rules, leading to the dismissal of the petition for a divorce effectiveness certificate.

Summary: Background: A petition for leave to appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which upheld the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent had filed for dissolution of marriage, citing cruelty, non-payment of dower, and non-performance of marital obligations. ----Issues: Whether the trial court erred in decreeing the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, non-payment of dower, and non-performance of marital obligations. Whether the High Court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's appeal was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, affirming the dissolution of marriage. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to prove cruelty and other grounds for dissolution. However, the court found that the respondent provided sufficient evidence, including the petitioner's alleged illicit relations with another woman and failure to provide maintenance. The court emphasized that cruelty encompasses mental torture and not just physical abuse. Precedents were cited to support this interpretation. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner's conduct, including contracting a second marriage, supported the respondent's claims. Furthermore, the court found that the case did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance, as required for an appeal under the Family Courts Act. Precedents were cited to support this point. -----Citations/Precedents: [2018 SCR 1167] (Muhammad Sohrab vs. Sobia Hayat) [2014 SCR 718] (Muhammad Sabil Khan and another v. Saima Inshad) [1998 SCR 129] (Basharat Aziz vs. Mst. Dil Jan & 10 others) [PLD 2004 SC (AJ&K) 17] (Muhammad Younus v. Shahnaz Begum and others) [2002 CLC 730] (Musthtaq Hussain Khan v. Mst. Hafiza Aziz and 3 others) [2001 SCR 331] (Mushtaq Hussain Khan v. Mst. Hafeeza Aziz and 3 others)

Summary: Suit will be filed where wife ordinarily resides ---- ''Pakistani courts have jurisdiction in cases where either party resides or has resided in Pakistan, and specifically, in cases of marriage dissolution or dower, where the wife ordinarily resides.'' --- West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, especially Rule 6 --- The court referred to Black?s Law Dictionary and Dicey's "Conflict of Laws" to define "ordinarily resides," emphasizing that it does not necessarily mean permanent residence. The court noted that the respondent, though living in the USA, had substantial connections to Pakistan. --- The court found that the Family Court?s preliminary decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula and the subsequent proceedings were in compliance with the legal and Islamic principles. It noted that the respondent?s withdrawal of the suit for the remaining clauses rendered the preliminary decree final. --- The judgment referred to Islamic law, specifically the concept of Khula, where a woman can seek dissolution of marriage. It cited Surah Baqra from the Quran to explain the principles governing Khula. --- The Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning and conclusions of the lower courts, finding no legal or factual errors. The petitions were dismissed as meritless, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: Background: In Shariat Petition No. 11-I/2022, the petitioner challenged Section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, arguing that it allows Khula (dissolution of marriage initiated by the wife) without the husband's consent, which he claimed is against Islamic injunctions. The petitioner sought to have this section declared un-Islamic and void, and to have the law amended to require the husband's consent for Khula. ----Issues: 1- Whether Section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, allowing Khula without the husband's consent, is against Islamic injunctions. 2- Whether the Family Court's decision granting Khula to the petitioner's wife without his consent is valid under Islamic law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Validity of Section 10(4): The Full Bench of the Federal Shariat Court in “Saleem Ahmad and others v. Government of Pakistan and others” (PLD 2014 FSC 43) had already addressed the issue. It was held that courts of competent jurisdiction could decree Khula when reconciliation fails, even without the husband's consent. This decision affirms that Section 10(4) does not violate Islamic injunctions. --Judicial Authority to Grant Khula: The court emphasized that the judiciary has the authority to dissolve marriages, including Khula, if reconciliation fails. This authority is supported by Islamic principles, as courts are established to resolve disputes, including those involving marriage dissolution. --Legal Effect of Khula: The court reiterated that Khula operates as a single irrevocable divorce, allowing both parties to remarry each other without an intermediary marriage, unlike in the case of a triple talaq where halala (intermediary marriage) is required. The court noted that Iddat (waiting period) applies to the wife if she wishes to remarry after Khula. The Shariat Petition was dismissed in limine, as the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court upheld the earlier judgment of the Full Bench and confirmed that Section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, allowing Khula without the husband's consent, is consistent with Islamic law. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2014 FSC 43 (Saleem Ahmad and others v. Government of Pakistan and others) PLD 2013 Lahore 88 (Major Qamar Zaman Qadir v. Judge Family Court, Jehlum and others) PLD 2013 Sindh 209 (Danish v. Mst. Fozia Danish and another) 2011 CLC 1211 (Attiq Ahmed Khan vs. Noor-ul-Saba and another) PLD 2010 Karachi 131 (Muhammad Ayub Khan v. Mst. Shehla Rasheed and another) PLD 2003 Peshawar 169 (Fazli-e-Subhan v. Mst. Sabereen and 3 others) 2000 MLD 447 (Gulzar Hussain v. Mst. Mariyam Naz) PLD 1970 Lahore 1 (Mst. Nawab Bibi and 14 others v. Mst. Anwar Bibi and 6 others)

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, while the respondent filed four suits seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, dower, maintenance, and recovery of dowry articles. The Family Court consolidated the suits and decreed the dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula, awarding maintenance from April 22, 2021, to the period of iddat, and dismissed other suits, including the appellant's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant appealed against the dissolution of marriage and the maintenance allowance decree. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court erred in dissolving the marriage on the basis of khula. 2- Whether the Family Court correctly awarded maintenance allowance from April 22, 2021, to the period of iddat. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Dissolution of Marriage (Khula): The court upheld the dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula, referencing Verse No. 229 of Surah Baqarah from the Holy Quran, which allows a wife to seek divorce by returning consideration to the husband if they cannot keep within the limits of God. The court emphasized that a judge can order khula even without the husband's agreement, based on precedents from the life of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), where khula was enforced upon the wife's request for separation due to incompatibility or extreme dislike. The evidence presented showed sufficient grounds for mental cruelty and an irreparable breakdown of the marital relationship, justifying the khula decree. --Maintenance Allowance: The court upheld the award of maintenance from April 22, 2021, to the period of iddat, citing the husband's failure to provide maintenance and evidence of mental cruelty and neglect. The court reasoned that the husband's duty to maintain his wife continues unless there is clear evidence of disobedience or wrongful abandonment, which was not substantiated by the appellant. The appeal challenging the dissolution of marriage was dismissed, and the award of maintenance allowance was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Verse No. 229 of Surah Baqarah, Holy Quran Instances of khula enforced by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge [2006 SCMR 100] Mst. Ambreen v. Muhammad Kabeer [2014 SCR 504] Muhammad Sabil Khan v. Saima Inshad [2014 SCR 718] Azhar Bashir v. Sadia Shafique [2015 SCR 521] Mehvish Kazmi v. Parvaiz Hussain [PLD 2022 SC (AJ&K) 1] Zaheer-ud-Din Babar v. Shazia Kausar [2016 CLC 332] Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin [PLD 1967 SC 97] Zubair v. Senior Superintendent Police, Jhelum Valley [PLD 2023 High Court (AJ&K) 89] Multan Jan v. The State [2020 P.Cr.LJ 88] B. Premanad vs. Mohan Koikal [AIR 2011 SC 1925] Muzaffar Ali v. Mst. Mehran Nisa [1989 CLC 1805] Muhammad Yaseen v. The State [2001 YLR 289] Sheikh Saeed Ahmed v. Abdul Wahid [1999 SCMR 1852]

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Haji Saif-ur-Rahman Shaheen, challenged the decree of Khula (dissolution of marriage) granted by the Family Judge, Jhang, on 18.05.2022, under Section 10(5) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 (Amended 2015). The petitioner also sought the invalidation of this judgment and a subsequent writ petition dismissal by the Lahore High Court on 20.09.2022. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court's decree of Khula under Section 10(5) was valid, given the section was declared against Islamic injunctions. 2- Whether Khula is an absolute right of a woman in Islam, and what are the necessary requirements to obtain it. 3- Whether a Judge can grant Khula when demanded by a wife without the husband's consent. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Invalidation of Section 10(5): Section 10(5) of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015, had already been declared against the injunctions of Islam by the Federal Shariat Court in its judgment dated 17.02.2022 (PLD 2022 FSC 25). The Family Court, Jhang's decree on 18.05.2022, was thus based on an ineffective provision. --Absolute Right of Khula: Khula is a fundamental right granted to women by Islam, based on the injunctions of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. A woman can claim a decree for Khula from a court of law by stating her dislike for her husband and her inability to live with him within the limits prescribed by Allah. This does not require proving maltreatment or mistreatment. --Judicial Grant of Khula: The court can grant Khula if a wife demands it and is willing to return her Mahar (dower). The court must grant the decree without delay if the wife expresses her intent to return the Mahar in exchange for Khula. Additionally, if the wife claims ill-treatment, the court can adjust the amount of compensation based on the circumstances. The Shariat Petition was dismissed in limine as it sought an in-personam relief, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. The judgment highlighted that the decree of Khula granted by the Family Court was based on an invalid provision, reinforcing that the right of Khula is an absolute right of a woman in Islam. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2022 FSC 25 (Imran Anwar Khan v. Government of Punjab, etc.) Holy Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 229 Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (Hadith regarding Khula) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 13 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Article 203GG

Summary: Where Nikahnamma does not specifically mention that whether dower amount was prompt dower or deferred dower rather only mentions that same is dower payable on demand, then it is not deferred dower only payable on dissolution of marriage either by death or divorce, but same is payable at time of demand even during the subsistence of marriage. Further held that when prompt dower is payable on demand then it will be a fallacy to argue that dower payable on demand is deferred dower and payable only on dissolution of marriage by death or divorce.

Summary: Facts: Syed Amir Raza (petitioner) and Mst. Rohi Mumtaz (respondent) were married on October 20, 2017, with the dower agreed upon as 50 tolas of gold ornaments and a house. After facing unpleasant and cruel treatment from the petitioner, the respondent filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula on September 22, 2018, which was granted by the Family Court on November 28, 2018, with the condition of the respondent surrendering 50% of her deferred dower and 25% of her prompt dower. The respondent also filed a suit for recovery of dower, maintenance, and dowry articles, which was partially decreed in her favor by the trial court on August 27, 2020. Both parties appealed the trial court's decision, but the appellate court dismissed the appeals on March 31, 2022. The petitioner's subsequent writ petition was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, on June 13, 2022, leading to this petition for leave to appeal.---Issue: Whether the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the appellate court's decision regarding the recovery of dower, maintenance, and dowry articles.---Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the petition, converting it into an appeal, and modified the impugned order regarding the deferred dower, holding that the respondent is entitled to only fifty percent (50%) share in the house (deferred dower) or its market value.---Reasoning: The Supreme Court observed that the trial court's judgment on August 27, 2020, disregarded its earlier judgment on November 28, 2018, which directed the respondent to surrender 50% of her deferred dower upon obtaining a khula dissolution. The Court noted that the house mentioned in the Nikahnama as deferred dower should only entitle the respondent to fifty percent (50%) of its share or market value, in line with Section 10(5) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which stipulates that a wife must forego a portion of her dower in the case of khula. The Supreme Court referenced its judgment in Muhammad Arif v. Saima Noreen (2015 SCMR 804) to support this position.----Judgment: Petition allowed; impugned order modified regarding the deferred dower entitlement.---Commentary: This case underscores the application of Section 10(5) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, in cases of marriage dissolution through khula, particularly regarding the division of deferred dower. It highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring equitable distribution of matrimonial assets upon dissolution of marriage while adhering to statutory requirements and previous judicial precedents.