📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case is about a wife, Shamshad Bibi, who filed a lawsuit seeking both maintenance (financial support) and her prompt dower, which had been fixed in her marriage contract (nikahnama) as gold ornaments worth Rs. 30,000, or their equivalent cash value.
The Family Court had already granted her the dower but rejected her claim for maintenance. When she appealed, the Appellate Court upheld that decision, so she approached the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction.
The High Court explained an important principle of Muslim family law: when a wife has not been paid her prompt dower, she has the legal right to refuse to live with her husband until it is paid, and during that period he remains responsible for her maintenance. The Court held that simply filing the lawsuit for dower counted as formally demanding it, so the husband's duty to pay maintenance began from the date the suit was filed and continued until the dower was actually paid.
Since the husband had not challenged the dower decree itself, and had not disclosed his income despite working in Saudi Arabia (while the wife claimed he earned Rs. 40,000-50,000 per month), the Court found the earlier maintenance amount inadequate. It fixed maintenance at Rs. 1,000 per month, payable from the date of the suit until the dower was paid, and modified the lower courts' decisions accordingly.
This case matters because it clarifies wives' rights regarding unpaid dower and the linked entitlement to maintenance during the period of non-payment.
یہ مقدمہ ایک بیوی، شمشاد بی بی، سے متعلق ہے جس نے نان و نفقہ (مالی کفالت) اور اپنے حق مہر معجل کے حصول کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا تھا، جو نکاح نامے میں تیس ہزار روپے مالیت کے سونے کے زیورات یا اس کے مساوی نقد رقم کی صورت میں مقرر کیا گیا تھا۔
فیملی کورٹ نے اسے حق مہر تو دلوا دیا تھا، لیکن نان و نفقہ کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا تھا۔ جب اس نے اپیل کی تو اپیلٹ کورٹ نے بھی وہی فیصلہ برقرار رکھا، جس پر اس نے آئینی رٹ جیورسڈکشن کے تحت ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے مسلم فیملی لاء کے ایک اہم اصول کی وضاحت کی: جب بیوی کا مہر معجل ادا نہ کیا گیا ہو تو اسے یہ قانونی حق حاصل ہے کہ جب تک مہر ادا نہ کیا جائے وہ شوہر کے ساتھ رہنے سے انکار کر سکتی ہے، اور اس دوران شوہر اس کے نان و نفقہ کا ذمہ دار رہتا ہے۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ مہر کے لیے مقدمہ دائ
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
Citation Name : 2012 YLR 277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : SHAMSHAD BIBI Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance and prompt dower in shape of gold ornaments entered in nikahnama or its alternate value---Dismissal of suit for recovery of maintenance and passing of decree for recovery of prompt dower by Family Court---Dismissal of plaintiff's appeal by Appellate Court---Validity---Defendant had not challenged decree for recovery of dower---Filing of suit by plaintiff for recovery of prompt dower was itself a notice of its demand from defendant and date of its demand would be date of institution of such suit---Defendant had not paid prompt dower to plaintiff, thus, she had a right to refuse to live with him till its payment to her and he was bound to pay her maintenance from date of its demand till its payment---Value of gold ornaments was mentioned as Rs.30,000 in nikahnama dated 25-8-2005---Alternate value of such gold would be fixed according to value prevalent at the time of institution of suit, which value would be determined by Executing Court---Plaintiff in plaint had claimed Rs.5,000 as monthly maintenance, while she in evidence had stated monthly income of defendant to be Rs.40,000/ 50,000---Defendant in his statement had not uttered a single word about his income---Defendant was working in Saudi Arabia, thus, Rs.1,000 per month would be sufficient for plaintiffs maintenance, which he was liable to pay from date of suit till payment of prompt dower to her---High Court modified judgments and decrees of both courts below accordingly.