Summary
- The Lahore High Court Multan Bench has ruled that Haq Mehr (dower) is a legal and enforceable right of a wife, and a husband is legally bound to fulfill it.
- In 2016, the wife filed a claim seeking Haq Mehr including five tolas of gold, four kanals of agricultural land, and a five-marla constructed house.
- The appellate court had directed the petitioner to pay four kanals of agricultural land and five tolas of gold, along with Rs.
The Lahore High Court Multan Bench has ruled that Haq Mehr (dower) is a legal and enforceable right of a wife, and a husband is legally bound to fulfill it. The court further observed that a wife may choose to live separately from her husband until the payment of Haq Mehr is made.
In its written judgment, the court held that when a man contracts marriage, he assumes full legal responsibility for the maintenance, support, and financial upkeep (nafaqa) of his wife.
The court dismissed the constitutional petition on merits, stating that the petitioner failed to establish any violation of constitutional jurisdiction in the decisions of the subordinate courts.
Justice Muzzammil Akhtar Shabbir of the Lahore High Court issued the detailed written judgment on a petition filed by Irfan Sarfraz.
According to the record, the petitioner was married in 2015. In 2016, the wife filed a claim seeking Haq Mehr including five tolas of gold, four kanals of agricultural land, and a five-marla constructed house.
The appellate court had directed the petitioner to pay four kanals of agricultural land and five tolas of gold, along with Rs. 300,000 as the value of dowry articles.
Challenging the appellate court’s decision, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition, arguing that he had already paid Rs. 400,000 in exchange for the four kanals of land.
However, the court noted that although the petitioner claimed payment in the presence of two witnesses, those witnesses were never produced before the court. The judgment observed that it is not reasonable to believe that such a large amount was paid without any receipt or documentary proof.
The petitioner also claimed that he had handed over a five-marla plot, which was acknowledged by lawyers of both parties.
The court held that the findings of the subordinate courts were within legal limits and were correctly based on evidence, and therefore did not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction.
