February 27, 2026
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
The National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW) and prominent women lawyers have called on the Supreme Court to reaffirm settled legal principles governing a woman’s right to seek dissolution of marriage through khula, as a five-member bench considers whether such a decree can be granted on grounds beyond a husband’s cruel conduct.
The reactions came in response to proceedings held on February 20, in which the Supreme Court sought written assistance from the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) and counsel on the question of whether a family court, hearing a suit for khula on grounds of cruelty, may grant the decree on some other basis. The bench — comprising Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Shakeel Ahmed — was hearing petitions filed by Ms Zainab Bibi, Ms Aram Naz Begum and Ms Syeda Bint-e-Zahra against their respective husbands. The court adjourned the matter indefinitely pending written submissions.
Both the NCSW and legal experts were careful to note that no adverse ruling had been issued, and that they respected the court’s authority to seek guidance on questions of Islamic jurisprudence. Their concern, however, was directed at what they described as the risk of unsettling a legal position that Pakistani courts have long regarded as established.
A settled question being reopened
In a formal statement, the NCSW said the right of a Muslim woman to seek dissolution of marriage through khula was “not a novel or unsettled question in Pakistani law.” The commission pointed to the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Khurshid Bibi v Baboo Mohammad Amin, which held that where a court is satisfied that spouses cannot live within the limits prescribed by Allah, dissolution may be granted. That judgment recognised khula as an independent legal mechanism — one not confined to proof of physical cruelty.
“Subsequent judicial practice has consistently treated khula as a no-fault remedy, distinct from judicial divorce on specific fault grounds,” the commission stated, warning that conflating khula with cruelty-based dissolution risked reintroducing “restrictive evidentiary burdens inconsistent with settled law.”
Maliha Zia, Director, Gender, Inclusion and Development at the Legal Aid Society (LAS), echoed those concerns. “The concern isn’t about anticipating a bad outcome, but about preventing a quiet shift in the law through questioning,” she said. “Khula has long been recognised as an independent right and doesn’t depend on proving cruelty. If that settled position starts getting blurred, it needs to be flagged.”
The evidence question
A central issue that emerged during the February 20 hearing was whether a woman’s own testimony could suffice to establish allegations of cruel conduct. Justice Shahid Waheed questioned whether cruelty could be established solely on a wife’s statement, observing that “a man’s dignity is also involved.” Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi noted that evidence must be produced and its requirements fulfilled.
However, Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan pushed back pointedly. “If a husband beats his wife at home, from where will the wife bring witnesses from the neighbourhood?” he remarked. He further noted that courts had consistently recognised non-payment of maintenance as constituting cruel conduct, and questioned why a woman unable to prove cruelty for any reason should be compelled to remain in her husband’s home.
The NCSW addressed the evidentiary concern directly. “Domestic harm often occurs within private spaces, without independent witnesses,” the commission noted, adding that courts had long recognised cruelty to encompass not only physical assault but also emotional abuse, sustained neglect, economic deprivation, and conduct rendering continued cohabitation untenable.
Zia agreed, describing the need for a realistic approach to evidence in family cases. “Family courts deal with intensely private marital relationships where independent witnesses almost never exist. Acknowledging this reality isn’t about lowering standards of proof; it’s about understanding how these cases actually work in practice.”
The commission added that “requiring external witnesses to acts of domestic violence would render relief illusory in many cases,” and that while the protection of dignity applied equally to both spouses, “preserving dignity could not mean compelling a woman to remain in a marital bond that has irretrievably broken down.”
The all-male bench
Observers also noted that the five-member bench does not include a single woman judge — a composition several legal commentators found significant given the nature of the questions being examined.
Zia said this did not delegitimise the proceedings but warranted attention. “These are questions that directly shape women’s lives, autonomy, and access to exit from marriage. When only men are interpreting and applying the law in this space, it becomes even more important that settled principles, lived realities, and structural inequalities are consciously kept in view.”
Nida Usman, founder of the Women in Law platform, was more direct in her reaction, writing on X: “It really is one step forward and two backwards for women in this country: after getting their due in the passports matter, here is an all-male SC bench trying to undo women’s right to khula by seeking the opinion of the CII on a matter that has long been settled.”
Constitutional and structural dimensions
The NCSW grounded its statement firmly in constitutional terms, citing Articles 4, 9, 14 and 25 of the Constitution as requiring that women have “equal and meaningful access to judicial remedies in matrimonial matters.” It also invoked Pakistan’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
NCSW Chairperson Ume Laila Azhar stressed that khula was rooted in the foundational nature of marriage itself. “Marriage in Islamic law is a civil contract founded on mutual consent, dignity, and the willingness of both parties to continue the relationship. When these essential elements no longer exist, the law must provide a dignified and accessible exit,” she said. “Khula is not dependent solely upon establishing visible acts of violence; it exists to prevent prolonged harm, incompatibility, and irretrievable breakdown.”
Zia pointed to the broader structural disparity that tighter khula requirements would deepen. “Men have unilateral talaq; women must approach the courts. Tightening khula requirements only deepens that disparity. Concerns about a man’s dignity cannot be addressed by effectively trapping a woman in a marriage.”
She also highlighted the financial stakes. Divorce carries serious economic consequences for women, including questions of dower, maintenance, dowry, and the pressure to accept unfavourable settlements. The NCSW similarly cautioned that financial entitlements must be determined in accordance with the law, and that “no decree should deprive a woman of her lawful rights without her informed and voluntary consent.”
Grounded in Islamic tradition
Both the NCSW and legal experts were at pains to frame their positions within Islamic jurisprudence rather than in opposition to it. The commission noted that the “rich diversity of Islamic juristic opinion historically acknowledged dissolution in circumstances of sustained incompatibility and harm,” and that Pakistani jurisprudence had drawn from this tradition in recognising that the preservation of justice within marriage was paramount.
Zia made a similar point regarding the CII’s involvement. “Since the issue has gone to the Council of Islamic Ideology, it’s equally important that the discussion remains grounded in Islamic principles. Khula isn’t a modern rights-based innovation — it is rooted in Qur’anic guidance and long-standing juristic principles focused on preventing harm. Framing it this way avoids collapsing the debate into a simplistic religion versus rights narrative.”
The matter remains pending before the court, with written submissions from counsel and the CII expected before the next hearing. Voicepk also approached Dr Raqhib Naeemi, chairman of the Counicl of Islamic Idelology, for comments on the NCSW statement but received no response till the filing of this report.