SC sets rule for payment of mehr

The top court has ruled that mehr must be paid whenever the wife demands it. It is not a payment that a husband has to make to his wife only in the event of divorce. “Mehr has to be paid whenever demanded by the wife," said a three-page written order authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa in a case related to non-payment of the money.

Mahr refers to the mandatory payment or gift from the groom to the bride at the time of marriage. It is a fundamental part of an Islamic marriage contract and is considered the bride's exclusive right. The court noted that mehr is an Islamic concept mentioned in the Holy Quran— Surah An-Nisa verse 4 and Surah Al-Baqrah verses 236-7. It is specifically recognized by the law of Pakistan at Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962.

In his petition, the husband had contended that since his marriage continued—that he had not divorced his wife—he was not liable to pay the mehr.
Rejecting the contention, the three-member bench led by CJP Isa referred to a 2001 judgement in which the Supreme Court had held that mehr can be demanded even when a marriage continues and that the husband is under an obligation to pay the amount agreed upon at the time of wedding.

Read Imran ruined my married life: Bushra’s ex-husband

The order noted that the wife had to file a suit for recovery of her mehr and maintenance and the husband unnecessarily involved her in litigation, which reached this court after six-and-a-half years. "This kind of frivolous litigation is paralyzing the judicial system of Pakistan. “The petitioner took up an untenable defence, and perpetuated it probably because costs were not imposed upon him and the courts did not insist that the decision of the Family Court should first be complied with before entertaining a challenge to it.

"The excuse put forward by the learned counsel that since the decision was challenged it was not complied with is untenable. “We reiterate that if a decision is challenged, it does not mean that it becomes ineffective, and need not be complied with. Imposing sufficient costs may have had the salutary effect to make the petitioner act reasonably,” “it added.

The order noted that courts should not hesitate in imposing costs, and compensatory costs too when required. "We were inclined to impose substantial costs, however, the learned counsel states that the mehr will be paid to the [wife] through bankers cheque/pay order/demand draft or will be deposited in the Family Court within one month.

“Therefore, in addition to imposing costs throughout we impose compensatory costs to the extent of one hundred thousand rupees on the petitioner considering the decrease in the value of money" “If the mehr and the said costs are not paid, the Family Court shall execute this order, which may include attachment of the properties of the petitioner," it added.