Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199----Dowry and bridal gifts---Recovery of alternate value of dowry articles---Scope of constitutional jurisdiction---Petitioner/wife challenged concurrent family court judgments whereby trial court had granted 30% alternate value of dowry articles but appellate court had set aside even that relief---Held, dowry articles and personal belongings of a wife remain her exclusive property and, where not returned in specie, she may claim their alternate value, subject to proof of existence, entrustment and retention---Appellate Court failed to appreciate material admissions and surrounding circumstances, including respondent/husband’s own stance that household articles were available in the house and his admission that no traditional dowry was given at the time of marriage, coupled with his assertion that he purchased various household luxuries during matrimony---Where original financial details were withheld by husband and wife’s bank record showed regular withdrawal of her salary for household consumption, presumption operated in favour of wife’s contribution---Appellate Court had, therefore, misdirected itself in discarding claim in toto merely on ground that wife had not produced her parents or further documentary proof. (b) Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act (LXXVIII of 1976)----Ss. 2 & 5---Dowry---Meaning and legal status---Property given to bride before or after marriage by her parents in connection with marriage constitutes dowry, excluding inherited property---Wife has absolute right in her dowry and bridal gifts---Any property rights available to a woman cannot be restricted, controlled or limited, and every gift becomes her exclusive property---There is no legal bar to a wife purchasing household articles herself after marriage and claiming them as dowry articles within the meaning of law, if such articles were acquired in connection with marriage and matrimonial home. Reliance placed on Ghulam Rasool v. Family Court 1991 CLC 1696 and Syeda Mehwish v. Additional District Judge, Islamabad (West) 2018 CLC 1337. (c) Family proceedings---Proof of dowry articles---Nature of evidence required---Strict rules of evidence---Held, wife’s solitary statement may be sufficient to prove existence of dowry items in a recovery suit, and oral testimony can substantiate a dowry claim because Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not apply in its strict sense to family proceedings---There is no rigid formula requiring receipts, shopkeepers’ details or production of parents in every case---Determination depends upon facts of each case and overall probabilities emerging from evidence. Reliance placed on Aziz-Ur-Rehman v. Mst. Bibi Jameela 2020 CLC 380 and Shafique Sultan v. Mst. Asma Firdous 2017 SCMR 393. (d) Dowry articles---Valuation of used household goods---Principles---Held, valuation of dowry articles is to be made case to case with reference to nature, quality, user period and prevailing market conditions---Judge, Family Court cannot adopt a bare rule of thumb without objective criteria---For assessing alternate value of used household articles, relevant factors include: present and past market value; years of use; average life of article; sentimental value attached to item; need to account for replacement at current price where article remains with husband; online market sources and auction platforms for valuation; reasonable depreciation; inflation and consumer price data; and average market prices supplied by parties---Used item may generally be considered at half price, but not below that level, unless marital breakdown occurred within first one or two years, in which case value may be considered around 80% in view of inflation and taxation---Family Court may use modern scientific tools, data, websites and market applications without requiring expert evidence in every case. Reliance placed on Mst. Ayesha Shaheen v. Khalid Mehmood 2013 SCMR 1049; Muhammad Zahid v. Mst. Ghazala Mazhar 2014 CLC 895; Mst. Samreen Bibi v. Judge Family Court PLD 2015 Lahore 504; and Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Samina Kanwal 2017 SCMR 321. (e) Matrimonial property---Assets acquired during subsistence of marriage---Vehicle purchased in husband’s name---Claim of wife on basis of contribution---Islamic jurisprudence, comparative jurisprudence and equitable principles---Petitioner/wife claimed that vehicle bearing Registration No. AAK-478, Suzuki Cultus, though standing in husband’s name, was acquired with her financial contribution including initial seed money---Held, such asset required consideration not merely as dowry but as matrimonial property---Though under existing Pakistani law a wife does not automatically acquire ownership in husband’s assets merely by marriage, proprietary interest may still be established through proof of contribution, partnership, trust, gift or joint acquisition---Non-financial contributions such as homemaking, childcare and domestic management possess economic significance and can justify recognition of beneficial interest in assets accumulated during marriage---Marriage operates as a cooperative partnership and there should be no bias in favour of sole titled money-earner against homemaker or child-carer. (f) Islamic law---Marriage and property rights---Separate ownership of spouses---Legislative competence to protect women’s matrimonial rights---Held, under classical Islamic jurisprudence husband and wife remain distinct legal persons with separate property rights; wife retains control over her own property and does not, by marriage alone, become owner of husband’s property, nor does husband acquire wife’s property automatically---However, Islamic law does not prohibit legislation for protection of women in respect of matrimonial property where justice and prevention of hardship so require---Concepts of mut‘at al-talaq, maslahah, ijtihad and compensation for women’s contribution provide room for development of protective legal norms---Silence of classical law on community or matrimonial property does not bar modern legislation safeguarding women from post-divorce destitution and exploitation. (g) Comparative jurisprudence---Recognition of marital partnership and non-financial contribution---Held, in a number of jurisdictions including Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Brunei, United Kingdom, United States and Canada, courts and legislation recognize direct and indirect contributions of spouses in distribution of matrimonial assets---Homemaking and childcare are treated as contributions of equal worth to financial input in appropriate cases---Principles of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, equitable distribution and community property regimes demonstrate a broader modern trend that marriage is an economic partnership and domestic contribution materially aids acquisition and preservation of wealth---Such comparative experience may legitimately guide development of family law principles in Pakistan. (h) Women’s rights---Constitutional protection---International obligations---CEDAW---Held, Pakistan, having ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), is under an obligation to reconsider its legal framework so as to eliminate discrimination against women in matters concerning ownership, acquisition, management and disposition of property, including consequences of dissolution of marriage---Equal protection of women, particularly homemakers and working wives, requires meaningful legal and policy safeguards in respect of assets acquired during marriage. (i) Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Writ jurisdiction---Limits on enhancement of relief---Held, High Court in constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappraise evidence to enhance relief granted by trial court---Although appellate court had erred in law and fact by denying wife’s rights altogether, High Court could not itself enhance trial court’s award from 30% to a higher quantified share on writ side---Proper course was to set aside both judgments and remand matter to Family Court for fresh decision after hearing parties and applying correct legal principles. (j) Recommendations/observations---Legislative reform---Nikahnama---Protection of wife’s property rights---High Court observed that every wife who cohabits with husband during subsistence of marriage should be deemed to have contributed, through domestic labour, childcare and household management, to establishment and maintenance of matrimonial home and family welfare---Recommended that Government initiate comprehensive legislation for equitable distribution of assets acquired during marriage, with enhanced protection for working wives and recognition of homemaker’s contribution---Further observed that Nikahnama may be amended, or appropriate condition inserted in existing form, to record agreement regarding equal division of property acquired after marriage, so as to better protect matrimonial property rights of women. Petition was allowed, judgments and decrees of Family Court and Appellate Court were set aside, and matter was remanded to Family Court for fresh decision after hearing parties, to be decided within two months.

Summary: (a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)---- ----S. 5---Proof of Nikah---Registration of marriage---Nikahnama not proved through reliable evidence---Suit for jactitation of marriage was filed by respondent No.1, while petitioner filed connected suit for restitution of conjugal rights on the plea that a Sharia Nikah had been solemnized between parties on 03.04.2020---Family Court decreed suit for jactitation and dismissed suit for restitution; Appellate Court and High Court maintained concurrent findings---Supreme Court held that alleged Nikah was not established through reliable or legally admissible evidence---No credible explanation was offered as to why alleged Nikah was never registered despite legal requirement under S.5 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---Registered Nikahnama is a public record and carries probative value in Court---Failure to register alleged Nikah and failure to prove Nikahnama in accordance with law weakened legal basis of petitioner’s claim. (b) Family law---- ----Jactitation of marriage---False and persistent claim of marriage---Object and scope---Suit for jactitation of marriage is a civil remedy available where a person persistently and falsely asserts existence of marriage---Object of such suit is to obtain declaration that no valid marriage exists and to secure decree of perpetual silence against wrongful assertion---Supreme Court held that petitioner’s conduct reflected an attempt to fabricate an impression of legality to his inhumane acts; therefore Courts below rightly decreed suit for jactitation of marriage and dismissed petitioner’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights. (c) Muslim personal law---- ----Alleged Sharia Nikah---Prohibited degree during subsistence of earlier marriage---Petitioner was already married and his lawful wife was paternal aunt/phupho of respondent No.1---Supreme Court observed that even on petitioner’s own showing, alleged marriage with respondent would attract doctrine of prohibited degree and would not be permissible during subsistence of earlier marriage---To overcome such legal impediment, petitioner set up wholly unsubstantiated plea of divorce against his lawful wife---Such plea, instead of strengthening petitioner’s case, reflected an attempt to tailor facts and manufacture a narrative to lend colour of legality to an otherwise unlawful and coercive relationship. (d) Criminal proceedings---- ----Allegations of sexual assault---Observations in family/civil proceedings---No prejudice to criminal trial---Respondent alleged that petitioner, being her paternal uncle/phupha and taking advantage of relationship of trust, proximity and dominance, subjected her to sexual assault---Supreme Court clarified that any criminal liability arising from such allegations would be adjudicated by competent criminal Court strictly in accordance with law, and observations made in present proceedings would not prejudice such criminal proceedings. (e) Family law---- ----Minor child---Maintenance---Biological father---Distinction between legitimate child and biological child---Petitioner was declared biological father of minor child born to respondent---Supreme Court held that even where petitioner’s version of marriage was discarded, he could not evade consequences of his own conduct---Minor child is an innocent life and cannot be left unprotected---Law does not permit deprivation of sustenance, dignity and lawful support merely because relationship between parents is disputed, unlawful or subject matter of criminal proceedings---Right of maintenance is vested in child and is founded upon welfare, justice and equity---Once biological paternity is established, corresponding obligation of maintenance follows as necessary legal consequence---Biological father cannot deny responsibility or seek refuge behind technical pleas of legitimacy. Cited Cases: • Qudrat Ullah v. Additional District Judge, Renala Khurd District Okara and others PLD 2024 SC 581 • Muhammad Afzal v. Judge Family Court, etc. 2025 LHC 495 (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 9, 14, 25 & 35---Welfare of child---Child born outside wedlock---No deprivation of maintenance and protection---Supreme Court emphasized that welfare and rights of minor child cannot be made hostage to unlawful conduct, disputes or defences of adults---Even where child is alleged to have been born outside wedlock, law does not permit such child to be treated as a person without entitlement---Right to maintenance and protection vests in child---Stigma of illegitimacy cannot become shield for biological father to evade responsibility, nor justify deprivation of innocent child---Approach is consistent with constitutional obligations under Arts. 9, 14, 25 and 35 of Constitution and Pakistan’s international commitments under Convention on the Rights of the Child, requiring protection of children without discrimination. (g) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 185(3)---Concurrent findings of Family Court, Appellate Court and High Court---No reappraisal of evidence by Supreme Court---Supreme Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under Art.185(3), it does not sit as a Court of further appeal to reappraise evidence or substitute its own conclusions for concurrent findings recorded by Courts below---Interference is warranted only where findings are perverse, arbitrary, based on misreading or non-reading of material evidence, suffer from jurisdictional defect, or result in manifest miscarriage of justice---Petitioner failed to establish lawful basis for relief and sought reassessment of evidence, which was impermissible. Cited Cases: • Saleh Muhammad and another v. Mst. Mehnaz Begum and others PLD 2025 SC 1039 • Allah Bakhsh deceased through LRs and others v. Muhammad Riaz and other PLD 2025 SC 63 • Muhammad Ain-Ul-Haq v. Abdul Ali and another 2024 SCMR 1767 (h) Civil litigation---- ----Frivolous and vexatious litigation---Use of judicial process as coercion and harassment---Exemplary costs---Supreme Court observed that petitioner, despite failing to establish alleged Nikah before three forums, persisted in invoking legal process to pressurize and morally intimidate respondent---Respondent, a young woman, was compelled to undergo repeated, invasive and demeaning scrutiny through a defence concurrently found unsubstantiated---Use of judicial proceedings as instrument of coercion and harassment is impermissible---To mark strong disapproval, compensate respondent for needless hardship, and deter frivolous/vexatious litigation, exemplary costs of Rs.1,000,000 were imposed, payable to respondent No.1 within thirty days, failing which recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Cited Case: • Zakir Mehmood v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence (D.P), Pakistan Secretariat, Rawalpindi and others 2023 SCMR 960 (i) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 14---Dignity of person---Secondary victimization of women through court process---Supreme Court held that dignity of person is inviolable and constitutionally protected---Courts cannot remain passive venues for perpetuation of social prejudice, nor permit their process to become means of inflicting secondary victimization upon women who approach Courts for vindication of lawful rights---Frivolous allegations and contrived pleas aimed at undermining identity, character and dignity of a woman cannot be countenanced in any civilized system of justice. Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused; concurrent judgments and decrees of Family Court, Appellate Court and Lahore High Court were maintained; suit for jactitation of marriage filed by respondent No.1 remained decreed and petitioner’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights remained dismissed; petitioner was burdened with exemplary costs of Rs.1,000,000 payable to respondent No.1 within thirty days, failing which recoverable as arrears of land revenue; observations regarding criminal liability were held not to prejudice any competent criminal proceedings.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Muslim personal law / Family law----Maintenance of wife---Obligation of husband---Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Arts.2A, 3, 9, 25(3), 31, 34, 35, 37 & 38---Islamic Injunctions (Quran, Sunnah, Ijma, Ijtihad)---Status of wife and duty of support---Scope. Marriage in Islam is a contract creating reciprocal rights and obligations; one of the most fundamental rights of a wife is to be maintained by the husband in accordance with his financial means for the entire subsistence of the marriage. This obligation covers housing, food, clothing, healthcare and other essentials of a dignified life and is rooted in the Quran, Sunnah, juristic consensus and ijtihad, as well as in constitutional provisions which mandate protection of women from material and moral neglect. Once this obligation arises, it is legally enforceable, and any neglect in performance renders the husband liable in law. The accumulation of unpaid maintenance does not alter the marital bond or extinguish the wife’s right; it merely creates enforceable financial claims (arrears) against the husband. (b) Muslim personal law / Family law----Maintenance of wife---Quran and Sunnah---Extent of obligation---Divorced wife during ‘iddat’---Principles. Quranic verses (inter alia, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:233 & 241; Surah At-Talaq 65:1, 7; Surah An-Nisa 4:34) collectively establish that the husband/father must bear the reasonable cost of food, clothing and residence of his wife and children, and must also provide reasonable maintenance to a divorced wife during her waiting period, according to his means. The Sunnah reinforces this duty: (i) the Farewell Sermon commands kind and generous treatment of women in food and clothing; (ii) the Prophet (SAW), when asked about the wife’s rights, declared that she be fed and clothed as the husband does for himself, without humiliation or violence; and (iii) he permitted a wife, where the husband was neglectful, to take from his property what was reasonably necessary for herself and the children. Under classical fiqh, a settled maxim provides that “whoever is confined for the benefit of another, his maintenance is on that other,” which applies to the wife who, being confined to the matrimonial home, must be maintained by the husband so long as she is not recalcitrant or disobedient. (c) Family Courts Act, 1964 & Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961----Past maintenance---Absence of prior agreement---Jurisdiction of Family Court / Arbitration Council to grant arrears---Delay in approaching Court---Effect. Questions often arose whether, in the absence of a specific agreement, a wife could obtain a decree/certificate for past maintenance; whether an Arbitration Council or a Family Court could grant arrears; and from what date maintenance should run (cause of action, filing of application/suit, or date of order). A Division Bench of Lahore High Court in Sardar Muhammad v. Mst. Nasima Bibi (PLD 1966 (W.P) Lah. 703) held that (i) the husband’s obligation to maintain his wife commences with the solemnization of marriage, subject to recognized conditions; and (ii) a wife’s delay in approaching the Court, or her attempts to seek alternative remedies outside Court, does not take away her right to claim maintenance from the date when the cause of action first arose. The Courts (Arbitration Council or Family Court) are fully competent to grant arrears of maintenance, subject to limitation and the circumstances of each case. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum (PLD 1972 SC 302) and later reinforced in Mst. Farah Naz v. Judge Family Court, Sahiwal (PLD 2006 SC 457), thereby settling that past maintenance can be decreed, even without a prior written agreement, once neglect is proved. (d) Limitation Act, 1908----Art.120 & S.23---Suit for past maintenance---“Right to sue”---Continuing wrong---Successive causes of action---Six-year limitation---Whether operates as a rigid cap on arrears. Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 prescribes a six-year limitation period for suits where no specific period is otherwise provided, to be reckoned from the date when the “right to sue” accrues. In maintenance matters, the obligation is periodic and accrues month by month; each non-payment constitutes a fresh default and creates a recurring debt. Such non-payment is a “continuing wrong” within the meaning of S.23 of the Limitation Act; the cause of action arises de die in diem (day by day) so long as neglect continues. Failure by the wife to sue on an earlier instalment does not bar a later suit founded on subsequent defaults; successive causes of action may be independently pursued. While Art.120 applies to suits for recovery of past maintenance, it regulates only the time within which the suit must be brought, not the underlying validity or subsistence of the claim. Where the husband’s clear refusal or neglect to maintain is shown within six years preceding the suit, and the suit is filed within that period, the wife’s claim for arrears, covering the entire span of established neglect, is maintainable and is not automatically cut down to the last six years alone. In cases of ambiguity, limitation statutes should be construed in a manner that avoids depriving a party of substantive rights and prevents hardship, while still respecting the statutory framework. Cited Cases: • Sardar Muhammad v. Mst. Nasima Bibi and others PLD 1966 (W.P) Lahore 703 • Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and 3 others PLD 1972 SC 302 • Mst. Farah Naz v. Judge Family Court, Sahiwal and others PLD 2006 SC 457 • Venkopadhyaya v. Kavari Hengusu 2 Madras 36 • Holes v. Chard Union (1894) 1 Ch. 293 • Basawanewa Balappa v. Balappa Shivappa AIR 1936 Bombay 289 • Mst. Ramzanu Bibi v. Ibrahim (deceased) through L.Rs and others 2025 SCMR 955 (e) Family law----Maintenance of wife---Arrears of maintenance as “debt”---Neglect proved---Effect. Once the Family Court determines, on evidence, that the husband has neglected to maintain his wife without her fault, arrears of maintenance are treated in law as a debt owed by the husband to the wife. That finding, having not been set aside by the first appellate Court and not challenged before the Supreme Court, became final. The husband cannot evade that debt by invoking technical pleas of limitation or by relying on a self-serving offer to pay only a truncated portion (e.g. last six years). Where the wife’s suit is held to be within limitation and her claim of continuous neglect is proved, she is entitled to recover the arrears for the entire period pleaded and established, and the Courts are bound to enforce such liability. (f) Practice and procedure----Family disputes---Technicalities of limitation---Approach of superior Courts. In matrimonial and maintenance disputes, the Courts are required to keep in view the constitutional and Islamic command to protect women from neglect and destitution. While limitation provisions must be applied where clearly attracted, they should not be extended by strained interpretation to defeat meritorious claims of vulnerable parties. The husband’s attempt to use Art.120 as a technical shield to avoid his long-standing obligation was, in the circumstances, rejected, and the decree for retrospective maintenance passed by the Family Court and restored by the High Court was maintained. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; judgment of the High Court restoring the Family Court decree for maintenance from June 2004 till subsistence of marriage upheld; no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Family law—Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (DMMA) ----S. 2(ii), (ii-a), (viii); Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (MFLO), S. 6; Constitution, Arts. 14, 25 & 35 Dissolution—Grounds—Second marriage without permission—Admitted second marriage contracted by husband during subsistence of first marriage, without consent of first wife or permission of Arbitration Council—Conviction under S. 6(5), MFLO remained unchallenged—Held, contravention of S. 6, MFLO squarely attracts S. 2(ii-a), DMMA and, by itself, furnishes a complete ground to dissolve the marriage—Marriage dissolved on this ground. (b) Family law—Khula v. statutory dissolution ----DMMA, S. 2; MFLO, S. 6 Whether Family Court may convert a suit for dissolution on statutory grounds into khula without wife’s consent—Held, No—Khula is a distinct remedy premised on the wife’s informed, voluntary consent; it cannot be imposed to replace a failed statutory ground—Family Court erred in granting khula suo motu and in forfeiting dower on that basis. (PLD 2024 SC 645 ref.) (c) Evidence—Standard of proof in DMMA proceedings ----DMMA, S. 2; QSO, 1984, Art. 117 (general burden) Standard—Balance of probabilities applies; insistence on FIRs, medical certificates or documentary corroboration to prove cruelty is misconceived—Courts must assess the woman’s testimony and surrounding circumstances, including mental and emotional abuse often occurring in private (“bedroom crime”)—High Court’s reliance to avoid re-appraisal in constitutional jurisdiction is inapt where the legal standard applied below is erroneous. (PLD 2022 SC 353; 2024 SCMR 1271; 2021 SCMR 1986; PLD 1996 SC 267; 1995 SCMR 955; 2022 CLC 974; 2023 SCMR 1434 distinguished) (d) Cruelty—Scope and assessment ----DMMA, S. 2(viii) Cruelty includes physical, mental and emotional abuse; may consist of patterns of conduct rendering marital life intolerable; focus is the impact of the husband’s behavior on the wife—Courts below erred by treating absence of eyewitnesses and documents as fatal and by ignoring the cumulative effect of conduct pleaded and deposed. (PLD 1963 Dacca 947; 2015 MLD 1623; 2013 CLC 1203; 2023 SCMR 246 ref.) (e) Maintenance during subsistence of marriage ----Nikahnama (cl. 17); MFLO; Constitution, Arts. 14, 25 & 35 Obligation—Payment of Rs.10,000 per month stipulated—Unrebutted evidence of non-payment—Alleged “disobedience” is not a lawful ground to deny maintenance—Findings to contrary set aside; maintenance payable for the subsistence period of marriage. (PLD 2022 SC 686 ref.) (f) Dower (mehr) ----Khula not granted—Effect—Where dissolution is decreed on a statutory ground (here, illegal second marriage), wife is not required to return dower—Petitioner entitled to retain plot (200 sq. yds., FES Jinnah Garden Phase-I, Islamabad), 30 tolas gold, and Rs.500,000/-; amount not earlier paid remains payable. (g) Judicial reasoning—Gender-sensitive adjudication & language ----Constitution, Arts. 14, 25 & 35 Courts must eschew patriarchal stereotypes and moralistic terminology (“disobedient/self-deserting wife”, “compelled to contract second marriage”) that stigmatize women and obscure legal standards—Judicial language must reflect dignity, equality and non-discrimination; findings must be evidence-based, not presumption-driven. (h) Case law distinguished / affirmed ----Rashid Ali Shah v. Haleema Bibi, PLD 2014 Pesh 226, and similar views—Not good law post-PLD 2025 SC 262; clause (ii-a) of S. 2, DMMA remains a subsisting ground—Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari, 2023 SCMR 1434, distinguished on scope (standard of proof issue, not re-appraisal of facts). (PLD 2025 SC 262 ref.) Cited Cases: • Ibrahim Khan v. Mst. Saima Khan, PLD 2024 SC 645 • Faryal Maqsood v. Khurram Shehzad Durrani, PLD 2025 SC 262 • Haseen Ullah v. Mst. Naheed Begum, PLD 2022 SC 686 • Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari, 2023 SCMR 1434 (dist.) • Muhammad Shariful Islam v. Suraya Begum, PLD 1963 Dacca 947; Shahana Bibi v. Nadeem Shah, 2015 MLD 1623; Rabia Rasheed v. Faisal Mir, 2013 CLC 1203; Tayyeba Ambareen v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani, 2023 SCMR 246 • Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din, PLD 2022 SC 353; Nazeeran v. Ali Bux, 2024 SCMR 1271; Khalid Hussain v. Nazir Ahmad, 2021 SCMR 1986; Muhammad Amir v. Khan Bahadur, PLD 1996 SC 267; Begum Hamid Mehmood v. Muhammad Masood, 1995 SCMR 955; Meezan Bank Ltd. v. WAPDA First Sukuk Co., 2022 CLC 974 Disposition: Civil petition converted into appeal and allowed—Judgments of Family Court, Appellate Court and High Court set aside to the extent of khula, dower and maintenance—Marriage dissolved on ground of second marriage in violation of law (DMMA S. 2(ii-a) read with MFLO S. 6)—Petitioner retains dower (plot, gold, Rs.500,000/-) and is entitled to maintenance at Rs.10,000 per month for the period the marriage subsisted—Approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Muslim Family Laws— —Maintenance—Entitlement of wife—Effect of rukhsati or consummation—Scope— Marriage between parties solemnized but rukhsati not effected—Family Court decreed maintenance from date of marriage—Appellate Court enhanced amount—High Court set aside decree holding wife not entitled to maintenance as marriage was unconsummated—Supreme Court held that wife’s entitlement to maintenance flows from solemnization of valid marriage and is not contingent on rukhsati or consummation—Maintenance is a binding legal duty of the husband arising from the marital contract itself—Conditioning maintenance on consummation or rukhsati undermines dignity, equality, and non-discrimination guaranteed by Articles 14, 25 & 35 of the Constitution—Customary practice of rukhsati has no independent legal effect—Precedents: Muhammad Nawaz v. Khurshid Begum (PLD 1972 SC 302), Sardar Muhammad v. Nasima Bibi (PLD 1966 Lah. 703), Najam-ur-Rehman v. Masooma Hassan (2023 CLC 991), and Haseen Ullah v. Mst. Naheed Begum (PLD 2022 SC 686) relied upon. (b) Exceptions— —When may husband be excused from paying maintenance—Burden of proof— Husband may be excused only where he proves through clear and cogent evidence that wife has wholly and unjustifiably withdrawn from the marital relationship including emotional, residential, and relational aspects—Burden lies entirely on husband—Non-cohabitation arising from husband’s failure to provide residence, rukhsati arrangements, agreed dower, or living conditions does not disentitle wife—Wife’s right persists where husband’s own neglect causes absence of consummation—Concept of nushūz (rebellion) to be narrowly construed in line with Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah and constitutional guarantees—Cases referred: Tariq Mehmood v. Farah Shaheen (2010 YLR 349), Muhammad Sharif v. ADJ (2007 SCMR 49), Abdul Fahim v. Mst. Shahnaz Begum (2003 CLC 1450). (c) Constitutional Law— —Articles 14, 25 & 35—Right to dignity, equality, and family protection—Judicial duty to adopt gender-sensitive language— Court emphasized that patriarchal judicial formulations linking maintenance to “surrender,” “submission,” or consummation are inconsistent with constitutional values—Use of gendered, stereotypical expressions undermines equality and dignity of women—Judicial language in family law must affirm equal status of women as autonomous persons—Courts bear constitutional duty to employ rights-based, gender-sensitive reasoning—Precedents: Zahida Parveen v. Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2025 SCP 107), Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin (PLD 1967 SC 97). (d) Role of Amicus Curiae— Court recorded appreciation for scholarly assistance of amici curiae (Professor Khaled Abou El Fadl, Dr. Muhammad Zubair Abbasi, and Ms. Fatima Yasmin Bokhari), emphasizing the importance of inclusive and comparative perspectives in matters of public importance and constitutional significance. Cited Cases Muhammad Nawaz v. Khurshid Begum PLD 1972 SC 302 Sardar Muhammad v. Nasima Bibi PLD 1966 Lah. 703 Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin PLD 1967 SC 97 Najam-ur-Rehman v. Masooma Hassan 2023 CLC 991 Haseen Ullah v. Mst. Naheed Begum PLD 2022 SC 686 Tariq Mehmood v. Farah Shaheen 2010 YLR 349 Muhammad Sharif v. ADJ 2007 SCMR 49 Abdul Fahim v. Mst. Shahnaz Begum 2003 CLC 1450 Zahida Parveen v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2025 SCP 107 Disposition Petition accepted—Impugned judgment set aside—Wife held entitled to maintenance from date of marriage at Rs. 5,000/- per month till dissolution of marriage and including iddat period.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act, 1964 – Ss. 5, 17 – Maintenance of child – Scope and quantum – Principles derived from Islamic jurisprudence and case law - Held, father is under a continuous legal and religious obligation to maintain his children regardless of the marital status with the mother or custodial arrangements – This obligation is derived from the immutable bond of paternity and not contingent upon cohabitation or custody – Cited with approval: Humayun Hassan v. Arsalan Humayun (PLD 2013 SC 557); Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law, Sections 369–370. (b) Islamic law – Nafaqah (maintenance) – Determination of amount – Considerations of child's needs and father's financial capacity - Held, maintenance must include all reasonable expenses essential for physical, mental, and emotional development of the child, including food, shelter, healthcare, education, and social needs – The father’s income and earning capacity must be weighed, but mere unemployment is not a valid defense if the father is physically and mentally capable of earning – Hanafi position noted: obligation to earn subsists even if wealth is not currently possessed – Cited texts: Hedaya, Ameer Ali on Mahomedan Law, Fyzee’s Outlines of Muhammadan Law. (c) Family law – Custody and maintenance – Distinction – Termination of marriage does not absolve father from child support - Held, the obligation to maintain a child continues post-divorce and is independent of the wife’s right to maintenance – Such duty is not diminished if the child is in the hizanat of the mother – Ethically and legally untenable to link maintenance with custody. (d) Constitutional petition – Scope of interference – Concurrent findings – No material evidence produced to displace factual findings - Held, petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence (e.g., salary slips, income tax returns) to disprove the findings of the lower courts regarding his financial ability – Petitioner’s claim of limited income and remarriage not substantiated – High Court rightly dismissed the constitutional petition as no jurisdictional error or illegality found in concurrent decisions. (e) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Art. 185(3) – Leave to appeal – Principles – Concurrent findings of fact by trial, appellate, and High Court – No interference warranted Held, Supreme Court declined to grant leave as no question of law of public importance was made out, and the findings of the courts below were duly supported by the record and legal principles. Disposition: Leave to appeal declined. Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards—Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5—Maintenance allowance for minor daughters—Scope of enhancement—Family Court’s jurisdiction to alter without fresh suit Petitioners challenged High Court's enhancement of maintenance allowance from Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 2,500 per month per child. Both daughters and their father filed opposing petitions: the former for further enhancement, the latter for reduction. The Supreme Court held that the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an application for enhancement of maintenance under S.151, C.P.C., without requiring a new suit. Held: Family Court may alter maintenance if existing allowance is inadequate, treating it as an application under S.151 C.P.C. Cited Case: Lt. Col. Nasir Malik v. ADJ Lahore (2016 SCMR 1821) (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Leave to appeal—Salary increase post-HC judgment—Grounds for remand to trial court for fresh assessment The petitioner’s salary had significantly increased (from Rs. 33,026 to Rs. 161,148) since the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that such a material change in financial circumstances warranted reassessment. The matter was remanded to the Family Court to re-evaluate the adequacy of maintenance allowance in light of current income. Held: Changed financial circumstances may justify remand for reassessment of fair maintenance. (c) Execution of Maintenance Decrees—Default in payment—Determination of arrears—Direction to clear in instalments Despite court orders, the father failed to pay the enhanced maintenance in full. The Supreme Court directed both parties to file concise statements before the executing court. Any determined arrears would be payable in three equal monthly instalments. Held: Defaulter must clear maintenance arrears as per court determination within fixed timeline. (d) Practice and Procedure—Remand—Expeditious disposal—Trial court directed to decide application within one month The trial court was directed to decide the application for enhancement within one month, preferably by holding day-to-day hearings, and to inform the Deputy Registrar of progress. Held: Remand with timeline ensures expedited relief in matters concerning welfare of minors. Disposition: CPLAs disposed of. Matter remanded to trial court for reassessment of maintenance allowance under S. 151 CPC, with arrears (if any) to be cleared in 3 monthly instalments.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act, 1964 — S. 5 & Schedule-I — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3) Maintenance allowance and claim for future marriage expenses by unmarried daughters — Judicial enforceability of prospective claims — Scope and limitations — Petitioners instituted a suit seeking (i) monthly maintenance from their father and (ii) anticipatory marriage expenses, asserting they were unmarried and their marriages were to be arranged — Family Court decreed the suit partially: maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month retrospectively and Rs.10,000/- per month prospectively with annual increase; and Rs.1,000,000/- each as marriage expenses — Appeal dismissed; however, High Court in constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution allowed respondent’s writ petition to the extent of marriage expenses, holding the claim to be premature and speculative — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that while a father has moral obligations, no statutory duty exists under the Family Courts Act to bear indefinite or future marriage expenses absent a concrete, present, and enforceable cause — Courts are to decide actual infringements of existing rights, not speculative or hypothetical grievances — In the absence of any fixed marriage date, engagement, or denied customary obligations, the claim was held non-maintainable — Premature claims were found to undermine judicial discipline and open floodgates of uncertain litigation — Petition dismissed, however liberty preserved for petitioners to file afresh if and when actual cause arises. Held, speculative claims for marriage expenses not legally enforceable until crystallized by a definite cause of action. - Faiz Bakhsh and others v. Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, Bahawalpur and others (2006 SCMR 219)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 14 & 35 – Right to Dignity and Protection of the Family Litigation weaponizing infertility and attacking womanhood—Scope—Held, right to dignity under Art.14 and the obligation to protect the institution of marriage under Art.35 prohibit the use of litigation to degrade and traumatize women—Allegation by petitioner-husband that respondent-wife was not legally “female” and unfit for conjugal life, despite conclusive medical findings and evidence of cohabitation, was found to be frivolous, demeaning, and abusive—Court recorded strong disapproval of such conduct, terming it an affront to personal dignity and an abuse of judicial process. (b) Muslim Family Laws – Dower and Maintenance – Validity despite Alleged Infertility Entitlement to dower and maintenance—Effect of infertility or suspicion thereof—Held, infertility, even if established, is no bar to a woman’s entitlement to dower or maintenance—Marital bond is a sacred covenant under Islamic law; personal medical conditions cannot be weaponized to undermine marital obligations—Court affirmed that the respondent-wife, having lived with the petitioner and proven consummation of marriage, was entitled to dower, dowry articles, and maintenance, as rightly held by courts below. (c) Family Courts Act, 1964 – Concurrent Findings – Interference by Supreme Court Concurrent findings of fact by Family Court, District Court, and High Court—Scope of interference—Held, Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent factual findings unless a legal error is apparent on the face of record—In present case, judgments of courts below were well-reasoned, based on record, and legally sound—Leave to appeal refused accordingly. (d) Civil Procedure – Abuse of Process – Frivolous and Malicious Defence Malicious litigation—Repeated allegations of non-femininity and infertility despite contrary medical findings—Held, petitioner’s persistent attempts to degrade the respondent through invasive scrutiny amounted to misuse of judicial process—Such conduct warrants exemplary sanction to deter recurrence and uphold judicial dignity. (e) Costs – Exemplary Costs – Deterrence against Misuse of Judicial Process Award of exemplary costs—Scope and justification—Held, Court has inherent power to impose exemplary costs to penalize frivolous and abusive litigation—Petitioner’s conduct caused prolonged trauma and humiliation to the respondent over a decade—Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 500,000/- to be paid to the respondent—Non-payment to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Disposition: Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 500,000/- imposed on the petitioner for abuse of judicial process and personal degradation of the respondent; recoverable as arrears of land revenue in case of non-payment.