LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) held that a decree of dissolution of marriage does not by itself decide the fate of the dower that requires its own evidences and findings.
The court also observed that the return of dower is not mandatory in every case of Khula and added entitlement to dower must be determined on the facts of each case.
Merely describing the divorce as Khula does not automatically extinguish the wife’s dower rights, the court remarked.
The court also observed that the dower is not a penalty upon the husband, nor a benefit held at the family court’s discretion, it is a proprietary right arising from the contract of marriage. It cannot be forfeited, reduced or apportioned without a specific finding that the law permits it, the court remarked.
The court passed this order in a petition of Arslan against the decision of a family court in a suit of his wife and dismissed the same in limine.
The court; therefore, directed the registrar to forward a copy of this judgment to the Punjab Secretary Law, and to the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan and asked for appropriate amendments in the law in the light of the court’s observations.
The court also issued guidelines to the family courts in detail in this regard.
The court explaining the right of Khula and the right to dissolve a marriage observed that they are separate rights.
The court said, Khula, is the wife’s own right to seek dissolution of her marriage through the court, even against her husband’s will, where she satisfies the court that continuing the marriage within the limits prescribed by Allah has become impossible. In other words, Khula can be granted to a woman without any fault of a husband, the court remarked.
Hence a woman seeking Khula need not to prove any ground and she givers up her dower as the price of release.
Whereas the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, by contrast, entitles a wife to a decree of dissolution upon proof of specific matrimonial wrongs, the court added.
However, nothing contained in this Act shall affect any right which a married woman may have under Muslim law to her dower or any part thereof on the dissolution of her marriage, the court added.
The court explaining the issue further, said that confusion arose because sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 were struck down without anything being put in their place, the court added.
Unfortunately, much of the subsequent difficulties experienced by the family courts appear to have arisen from treating every decree passed after reconciliation fails as if it were an identical category of Khula irrespective of the factual foundation of the claim, the court observed.
The court said, such an approach overlooks the distinction carefully preserved by both Islamic jurisprudence and the Federal Shariat Court itself between a dissolution founded upon unilateral aversion and one occasioned by the husband’s own misconduct.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026