Ghulam Habib v Mst. Shazia & Other Supreme Court Ruled for Women’s Proprietary Rights in Pakistan

By Muhammad Imran, Staff Member, SAHSOL-LUMS and Musa Haroon, Law Class 2026, SAHSOL-LUMS and Asma Rahmat, Final Year Law Student, SLC, Superior University

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Civil Petition No. 5432 of 2025 titled Ghulam Habib v. Mst. Shazia & others, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, has rendered a significant and precedent-setting decision on issues relating to dowry and bridal property, firmly reaffirming and safeguarding the proprietary rights of women within matrimonial relations.

The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence constitutes a significant reaffirmation of women’s economic agency within the broader framework of gender justice and constitutional equality. In its latest ruling, the Court has unequivocally held that jewellery, bridal gifts, and dowry articles given to a bride constitute her exclusive property, and that neither the husband nor his family may lawfully retain, appropriate, or exercise dominion over such assets. In doing so, the Court has recognized that these forms of property are not merely cultural or ceremonial exchanges, but often function as a woman’s embedded financial security within a gendered matrimonial structure where economic dependency has historically been asymmetric. The Court further clarified that Family Courts are fully competent to order recovery of such property where it is unlawfully withheld, thereby reinforcing the enforceability of women’s proprietary rights within the domestic sphere.

This development is situated within an evolving jurisprudence that increasingly engages with the gendered dimensions of family law and institutional practice. Earlier this year, the Court held that a Family Court cannot convert a wife’s suit for dissolution of marriage into a decree of khula without her free and informed consent, thereby safeguarding women from procedural coercion that may otherwise compel the relinquishment of financial and legal rights under the guise of expediency. In another significant ruling, the Court upheld the wedlock policy for government employees, recognizing the legitimate expectation of spouses—particularly women, who are disproportionately affected by spousal separation due to career mobility constraints—to be posted together, except where compelling and justified reasons exist.

These decisions collectively reflect a judicial sensitivity to the structural realities of gendered employment patterns, caregiving burdens, and institutional hierarchies that often place women at a disadvantage in both public and private spheres. They reaffirm that equality under the law is not merely formal, but must also be substantively responsive to lived gender realities.

Viewed through a gendered constitutional lens, these rulings strengthen the foundational promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination enshrined in the constitutional order. However, the enduring challenge in Pakistan remains not the absence of normative protections, but the persistence of a gender gap in enforcement and institutional responsiveness. Legal entitlements that exist on paper often encounter socio-cultural resistance, procedural inertia, and interpretive conservatism at the level of implementation. It is therefore imperative that Family Courts interpret and apply these principles in their full normative force, without permitting informal settlements or procedural shortcuts that dilute a woman’s autonomy or compromise her substantive rights. Similarly, law enforcement authorities must reconceptualize disputes involving bridal property not as private or “domestic” matters beyond legal scrutiny, but as cognizable violations of women’s property rights within a gendered framework of economic justice.

At the same time, state institutions must ensure that gender-responsive policies, such as the wedlock policy, are implemented uniformly and transparently, rather than being subjected to discretionary and often uneven administrative application. The effectiveness of gender equality jurisprudence depends not only on judicial articulation but also on institutional translation into practice, supported by accountability mechanisms and gender-sensitive training across the justice and administrative systems. Without such structural commitment, even the most progressive judgments risk being normatively high yet operationally weak. One such institution is the Union Council Office, to be streamlined as quickly as possible, and the local government elections are key in this regard.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has advanced an important gender-sensitive legal framework that recognizes women as autonomous legal and economic actors within both family and state structures. The responsibility now rests with subordinate courts, executive authorities, and public institutions to ensure faithful implementation of these principles in both letter and spirit, while also contributing to a broader societal shift that dismantles entrenched assumptions of unequal gender entitlement in matters of property, mobility, and personal autonomy.