LHC rules dower payable even without rukhsati, consummation

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday ruled that a woman remained entitled to her dower (Haq Mehr) even if rukhsati had not taken place and the couple had never lived together, holding that the non-consummation of marriage did not extinguish the woman's legal right to dower.

Justice Mirza Waqas Rauf issued a nine-page written verdict regarding the matter, allowing a petition filed by Azka Afreen. The verdict laid down an important legal principle regarding the payment and return of dower in cases of khula.

The court maintained that where the Nikahnama did not specify the time for payment of the dower, the entire amount was rendered immediately payable. The LHC further ruled that if the terms relating to dower were not clearly defined, the entire dower shall be treated as prompt (Mu'ajjal) and payable whenever demanded by the wife.

Read: SC restricts khula without wife's consent

Referring to the Nikahnama in the relevant case, the LHC observed that the stipulated dower comprising 10 tolas of gold, a one-kanal plot of land and a house constituted prompt dower and was also immediately payable.

According to the judgement, in cases where a marriage is dissolved through khula at the instance of the wife, she is required to return only 25% of the dower to her husband. As per the LHC, the dissolution of marriage through khula would take effect immediately upon the woman returning the 25%.

In a significant judgment on family law and setting aside findings of the subordinate courts, the LHC accepted Afreen's petition.

Last month, the LHC ruled that a husband is legally bound to fulfill commitments made to his wife in a separate agreement in addition to the dower recorded in the Nikahnama. The court issued the verdict as it upheld a trial court decision directing a husband to transfer a five-marla house to his wife.

Read More: Dower disputes: SC directs changes in Nikahnama

The court dismissed the husband's plea seeking to set aside the trial court's verdict and declared that the separate agreement executed at the time of marriage was legally enforceable. It also maintained that Haq Mehr is a legal right of the wife and not a favour or act of generosity by the husband.

Noting that under Islamic and family laws, dower is treated as a debt owed by the husband to the wife, the judgement emphasised that a woman's failure to demand Haq Mehr during marriage cannot be construed as a waiver of her right, observing that women often refrain from claiming dower due to social and domestic pressures.

The court also noted that dower may be agreed upon verbally, in writing, or even after marriage, and that Muslim law permits a husband to increase the amount of dower after marriage.