July 22, 2026
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has called for fresh legislation on post-dissolution dower (Haq Mehr) rights, noting that a legal vacuum created by a 2022 Federal Shariat Court ruling has led family courts to treat almost all divorces as Khula. This practice routinely deprives wives of their dower, even when fault under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 is fully proven.
In a detailed judgment, the Court observed that any such provision should be drafted in the language of Section 5 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, requiring family courts to record a specific finding on the cause of dissolution before deciding the question of dower, and making clear that dower is not affected where a ground under Section 2 of that Act stands proved. The Court directed the Registrar of the Lahore High Court to forward a copy of the judgment to the Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Government of the Punjab, and to the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, for such action as may be considered appropriate — effectively inviting the legislature to fill the gap left by the Federal Shariat Court’s 2022 ruling striking down the fixed formula that family courts had previously applied to Khula cases.
The recommendation came as part of a wider judgment in which the Court ruled that a wife’s right to her dower (Haq Mehr) remains protected where a marriage is dissolved on account of the husband’s cruelty or matrimonial misconduct even if the family court’s decree formally describes the dissolution as “Khula.” The Court held that a decree does not automatically carry the dower-forfeiting consequences of Khula merely because that word appears in the pleadings or the decree sheet.
The judgment, authored by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, was passed on a writ petition filed by a husband, Arslan, who had challenged the orders of the family courts in Toba Tek Singh directing him to pay fifty percent of his wife’s outstanding deferred dower after their marriage was dissolved. The Court dismissed the petition and, in the process, issued detailed guidelines for family courts across Punjab on how to decide the question of dower once a marriage ends — whether through Khula or on some other legally recognized ground.
‘Family Court can’t award dower to wife after FSC verdict struck down provisions’
The case arose out of a marriage between Nisha Shahid and Arslan, solemnized on March 18, 2022, against a Haq Mehr of Rs. 100,000, recorded as Ghair Mu’ajjal (deferred) in the Nikahnama. It was not disputed before the court that this deferred dower remained unpaid.
According to the wife’s pleaded case before the Family Court, shortly after the Nikah, when she demanded payment of her dower, her husband began beating her over trivial matters. She alleged that he remained unemployed, resorted to theft and intoxication, and repeatedly demanded that she bring money from her parents, using abusive language when she refused. Within days of the marriage, she alleged, he beat her and turned her out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, he made no effort at reconciliation, paid her no maintenance, and made no inquiry after her.
On the basis of this pleaded case, the wife instituted a suit before the Senior Civil Judge (Family Division), Toba Tek Singh, seeking dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance for the iddat period, and her dower. The trial court decreed the suit on September 1, 2022, invoking Section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, and awarded her fifty percent of the dower — being the portion to which she had herself confined her claim.
The husband’s appeal against this order and decree was dismissed as not maintainable by the District Judge, Toba Tek Singh, on February 7, 2023, prompting him to approach the Lahore High Court through the present writ petition.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner-husband argued that subsections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 — which had previously allowed family courts to direct a wife to surrender a portion of her dower upon a decree of Khula — had been declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam by the Federal Shariat Court in Imran Anwar Khan and others vs. Government of Punjab and others (PLD 2022 Federal Shariat Court 25). Since that matter was also sub judice before the Supreme Court, counsel contended, the Family Court had no lawful basis to award any part of the dower to the wife at all.
The Court, assisted by Ms. Amber Qayyum, Advocate, as amicus curiae, and Mr. Muhammad Farooq-e-Azam, Civil Judge/Research Officer of the High Court, undertook a detailed examination of the statutory scheme, the Quranic verses underlying the concept of Khula, and the body of Supreme Court and High Court precedent on the subject, before answering the questions framed in the case.
Questions framed for determination
The Court identified five questions arising for determination in the petition, and answered each of them in the course of its judgment:
i) Does the Family Court still have jurisdiction to decide dower on a case-to-case basis after the striking down of subsections (5) and (6) of Section 10? The Court held that this jurisdiction has not been taken away. What has been removed is only the fixed ceiling that subsections (5) and (6) once provided for family courts to apply mechanically. The Family Court must now itself examine the facts of each case and decide the question of dower without a predetermined formula to fall back on.
ii) Does a decree described as “Khula” necessarily mean forfeiture or return of dower, regardless of the cause of dissolution? The Court answered in the negative, holding that a clear distinction exists between dissolution founded on the wife’s mere aversion (Khula simpliciter) and dissolution occasioned by the husband’s cruelty or other legally recognized grounds. A decree does not acquire the consequences of Khula merely because that word is used in the plaint or decree sheet; the consequence follows only where the wife has, in substance, consciously elected Khula.
iii) Does physical, psychological, emotional, verbal, or economic abuse amount to cruelty sufficient to disentitle the husband from claiming return of dower? The Court held that it does. Cruelty under Section 2(viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 is not confined to physical violence; humiliation, verbal abuse, false imputations on character, calculated neglect, and tolerance of ill-treatment by the husband’s family all qualify, assessed by their cumulative effect on the wife concerned.
iv) What principles should govern judicial discretion on dower where dissolution is sought on grounds of cruelty or matrimonial misconduct? The Court set out detailed guidelines, summarized below, holding essentially that where a statutory ground of cruelty or misconduct is proved, dower is simply “not affected” — not reduced, apportioned, or shared.
v) Did the Family Court err in awarding fifty percent of the dower to the wife in this case? The Court held that it did not, and dismissed the writ petition, finding that the wife’s pleaded case of beating, expulsion from the home, and non-payment of maintenance fell squarely within the grounds of cruelty recognized under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, entitling her to full protection of her dower under Section 5 of that Act.
LHC guidelines for family courts
For the guidance of family courts across the province, the Lahore High Court laid down a set of nine structured principles governing how the question of dower is to be decided upon dissolution of marriage, whether by Khula or otherwise:
-
Dower is a proprietary right, not a penalty on the husband nor a matter of the Family Court’s discretion. It cannot be forfeited, reduced, or apportioned without a specific finding that the law permits it.
-
Dissolution and dower are separate questions. A decree of dissolution does not, by itself, decide the fate of the dower; that requires an independent finding on its own evidence.
-
The Federal Shariat Court’s 2022 ruling struck down only the fixed formula in subsections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 — not the underlying distinction between a wife’s separation founded on mere aversion and one compelled by the husband’s own misconduct (nashuz). That distinction survives; only the mechanical formula for applying it has gone, and family courts must now apply the distinction on the facts of each case.
-
A decree is not Khula merely because the word appears in the pleadings or decree sheet. Where the wife has pleaded and pursued a ground under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, the suit must be decided on that ground, and Khula cannot be substituted for it without the wife’s informed consent clearly appearing on record.
-
Cruelty under Section 2(viii) extends beyond physical violence to psychological, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse, judged by its impact on the particular wife. It need only be proved on the balance of probabilities, and a wife’s own credible testimony requires no medical or documentary corroboration.
-
Where a Section 2 ground is proved, Section 5 governs absolutely: the wife’s dower — prompt or deferred, paid or unpaid — stands unaffected in full. This is not a matter of degree; courts may not weigh the severity of cruelty to decide how much dower survives.
-
Even in genuine Khula cases, forfeiture is not automatic. The Family Court must independently decide, with reasons, what amount, if any, should be returned, and cannot order return of dower that was never actually paid.
-
Doubt must favour the wife. Where the evidence is genuinely close and the court cannot confidently determine which category the case falls into, that doubt must be resolved in favour of preserving the wife’s dower.
-
Every order must record its reasoning — whether a Section 2 ground was proved, and if not, why the case was treated as Khula and on what material. A decree silent on this point does not meet the standard set by the judgment and is liable to be set aside.
The Court further clarified that even where no statutory ground under Section 2 is proved but the marriage has collapsed irretrievably, the wife must be given a clear and informed choice — either to have her suit dismissed for want of proof, or to consciously accept dissolution through Khula on its lawful terms — and her consent to Khula cannot be presumed merely because her case has failed or because she no longer wishes to continue the marriage.
Legal community welcomes guidelines
Legal aid practitioners have welcomed the judgment as an important corrective to what had become an increasingly troubling trend in family courts across Punjab.
Alia Malik, associate lawyer at AGHS Legal Aid Cell, welcomed the LHC judgment, saying that after the Federal Shariat Court struck down subsections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 as repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, family courts had, in their Khula orders, been asking wives to surrender their entire dower. “The Lahore High Court has now laid down a guideline for family courts that dower cannot be forfeited, reduced, or apportioned without a specific finding by the court,” she told Voicepk.
She explained that the judgment also clarified what the FSC verdict actually struck down. “The FSC judgment struck down only the fixed formula in subsections (5) and (6), not the underlying distinction between a wife’s separation founded on mere aversion and one compelled by the husband’s own conduct.” Family courts, she said, must now determine which of the two applies on the facts of each case, since there is no longer a fixed formula to fall back on when deciding the question of dower. She added that the judgment also makes clear that even where no ground is proved and the case is treated as Khula, forfeiture of dower is still not automatic. “The family court must independently decide, with reasons, what amount, if any, should be returned, and cannot order the return of dower that was never actually paid.”
Legal observers say the judgment is likely to have a significant bearing on thousands of pending and future family court cases across Punjab, where confusion following the Federal Shariat Court’s 2022 ruling had reportedly led many wives to lose their dower even in cases where they had suffered documented abuse and misconduct at the hands of their husbands. Whether the provincial and federal law-making bodies will act on the Court’s recommendation for fresh legislation remains to be seen.