February 16, 2026
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that a husband who contracts another marriage without obtaining prior permission from the Arbitration Council must immediately pay the entire amount of dower to his existing wife, regardless of whether the marriage remains intact.
In a significant judgment delivered on February 10, 2026, Justice Abid Hussain Chattha ordered Kashif Iqbal to pay Rs1,000,000 as deferred dower to his wife Mehnaz Saleem, along with monthly maintenance allowance of Rs15,000 starting from December 27, 2021, with a 10% annual increase.
The case centered on whether deferred dower becomes immediately payable when a husband violates the mandatory requirements of Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, by contracting subsequent marriages without permission.
Husband concealed second marriage, claims woman
Mehnaz Saleem filed a suit for recovery of dower, maintenance allowance, and dowry articles against Kashif Iqbal. The marriage was solemnized on November 27, 2021, with a registered Nikahnama stipulating prompt dower of Rs5,000 and deferred dower of Rs1,000,000.
According to the petitioner’s claims, she discovered after marriage that her husband had concealed his second marriage and she was actually his third wife. “The Respondent had only disclosed the factum of his first wife who had died before her marriage. However, after marriage it transpired that the Respondent had already contracted second marriage and the Petitioner was his third wife,” the judgment noted.
The situation deteriorated further when the husband contracted a fourth marriage during his marriage with Mehnaz Saleem. She was expelled from the marital home within one month of marriage, leaving behind her dowry articles including gold ornaments.
High court disagrees with lower courts on maintenance
The Family Court initially awarded maintenance allowance for the Iddat (waiting) period only, believing divorce had been pronounced. However, the Appellate Court reversed this, finding no conclusive evidence of divorce but still denying maintenance on grounds that the petitioner was a “disobedient wife.”
Justice Chattha disagreed with both lower courts’ reasoning. The High Court found that the respondent had admitted in his written statement that “the Petitioner left his house a few days after the marriage,” which substantially corroborated her claim of brief residence.
“It is a settled principle of law that facts admitted need not be proved,” the judgment stated. “The Petitioner has pleaded specific circumstances which led to her expulsion. The fact of non-disclosure of second marriage and subsequently contracting fourth marriage by the Respondent is established on the record.”
The court held that these circumstances “provided a lawful excuse to the Petitioner to raise the issue of concealment and cheating with the Respondent.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in “Ambreen Akram v. Asad Ullah Khan and others” (2026 SCMR 1), Justice Chattha emphasized that “right of wife to maintenance flows unconditionally from the solemnization of a valid marriage and constitutes a binding legal duty.”
Groundbreaking ruling on deferred dower
The most significant aspect of the judgment relates to the immediate payment of deferred dower during the subsistence of marriage – a departure from the general rule that deferred dower becomes payable only upon dissolution of marriage or death of the husband.
The court noted that while the Family Court had awarded deferred dower believing divorce had occurred, and the Appellate Court reversed this finding no evidence of dissolution, “the Courts below erred in law by not considering the effect of Section 6(5) of the Ordinance in view of the allegation of polygamy pleaded by the Petitioner.”
Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, provides that “any man who contracts another marriage without the permission of the Arbitration Council shall: (a) Pay immediately the entire amount of dower, whether prompt or deferred, due to the existing wife or wives, which amount, if not so paid shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.”
The judgment established that Kashif Iqbal had filed a complaint under Section 6 on May 20, 2023, and was convicted by the Judge Family Court/Magistrate Section-30, Pasrur on February 7, 2024. His appeal against this conviction was dismissed on May 6, 2024.
“The object of this provision is to safeguard the financial rights of the wife and to deter arbitrary or deceitful further marriages,” Justice Chattha wrote. “In the present case, since the Respondent contracted marriages without fulfilling the mandatory legal requirement and has been penalized for the same, the liability to pay the entire deferred dower has become due, irrespective of the subsistence of the marriage between the parties.”
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in “Muhammad Jamil and others v. Mst. Sajida Bibi and others” (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 613) to support this interpretation.
Alia Malik, associate lawyer at AGHS Legal Aid Cell, the law provided protection to women in case of their husbands resorting to exercise their right of four marriages. The permission of the Arbitration Council as well as prompt payment of deferred dower to a woman under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance are safeguards put in place to secure rights of the previous wives,” Malik told Voicepk.
Dowry articles claim
Regarding dowry articles, the High Court restored the Family Court’s decree of Rs1,000,500, rejecting the Appellate Court’s reduction to Rs400,000.
The Appellate Court had reduced the quantum based on the reasoning that “the Respondent had previously been married prior to contracting marriage with the Petitioner and according to prevailing social trends, second marriages are generally solemnized in a simpler manner, without conferring substantial or expensive dowry articles.”
Justice Chattha strongly criticized this approach: “Such reasoning based on generalized societal assumptions rather than concrete evidence available on record amounts to substituting judicial analysis with conjectures. The determination of a dowry claim ought to rest strictly upon the evidence produced by the parties and not upon presumed social patterns or customary perceptions regarding second marriages.”
In the final judgment, W.P. No. 19363/2025 filed by the husband was dismissed, while W.P. No. 2743/2025 filed by Mehnaz Saleem was partially allowed. She was held entitled to recover the
maintenance allowance of Rs15,000 per month since December 27, 2021, with 10% annual increase until her legal entitlement. The court also ordered recovery of deferred dower of Rs1,000,000 as well as dowry articles as decreed by the Family Court.