Summary Lahore High Court upheld a trial court ruling directing a husband to transfer a five-marla house to his wife, reaffirming that dower is a legal right and enforceable obligation.
LAHORE (Dunya News) - The Lahore High Court has dismissed a husband's plea seeking to overturn a trial court verdict, ruling that he is bound to fulfil commitments made to his wife under a separate agreement in addition to the dower amount mentioned in the Nikahnama.
Justice Muhammad Sajid Mahmood Sethi issued an 11-page written judgment, stating that a husband is legally obligated to provide benefits promised in a separate agreement alongside the dower specified in the marriage contract. The court upheld the trial court’s decision directing the husband to transfer a five-marla house to his wife.
According to the judgment, the woman had filed a suit seeking recovery of a five-marla house as dower along with maintenance expenses during the waiting period. She maintained that her husband had promised to give her the house through a separate agreement executed on the day of their marriage.
The court observed that dower is a legal right of a wife and not an act of generosity or favour by the husband. It further noted that under the law, dower is considered a debt owed by the husband to his wife.
The written judgment stated that a woman’s failure to demand dower during marriage cannot be interpreted as relinquishing her right. It noted that women often refrain from claiming dower during marriage due to social and domestic pressures. The court further observed that dower may be agreed upon verbally, in writing, or even after marriage, while Islamic laws also allow a husband to increase the dower amount after marriage.
The court emphasized that in family matters, courts consider not only technical legal aspects but also social realities. It noted that family courts are tasked with resolving domestic disputes in a fair and balanced manner.
The husband had argued that the agreement was fabricated and prepared later. However, the court noted that both witnesses to the agreement appeared before the court and verified the document, thereby establishing its authenticity.
The judgment further stated that the burden of proving an allegation of forgery rests upon the person making the claim. The court observed that the husband opposed forensic examination of the signatures and thumb impressions on the document, a move that weakened his position.
The court remarked that refusal to undergo forensic testing undermines a party’s claim, adding that a person speaking the truth should not fear scientific examination. It also ruled that the mention of only Rs5,000 as dower in the Nikahnama does not render the separate agreement ineffective or unenforceable.
