LHC issues key guidelines for courts in disputed love marriage cases

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has issued a significant judgment outlining how lower courts should decide cases involving disputed love marriages,

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has issued a significant judgment outlining how lower courts should decide cases involving disputed love marriages, particularly where allegations of abduction, coercion or forced marriage are involved. The ruling makes it clear that a registered nikahnama or even a woman’s earlier statements supporting the marriage cannot, on their own, conclusively prove that a marriage was entered into with free and voluntary consent.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Anwaar Hussain of the LHC’s Bahawalpur Bench while dismissing a constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Jamil. The court upheld an appellate court’s earlier decision declaring the disputed marriage invalid after finding that the woman’s consent had not been established as free and voluntary.

The case originated from a suit for takzeeb-e-nikah (jactitation of marriage), in which the woman claimed that she had been abducted and forced into marriage against her will. Muhammad Jamil, however, maintained that both parties were in a consensual relationship, had willingly eloped and entered into a love marriage. He also filed a separate suit seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and both matters were heard together.

Initially, on December 7, 2023, the trial court ruled in favour of Jamil, dismissing the woman’s claim. The court relied primarily on the existence of a registered nikahnama and observed that the parties belonged to the same caste and were familiar with each other. It concluded that the dispute related to the continuation of the marriage rather than its validity.

However, the appellate court overturned that decision on August 27, 2025, ruling that the evidence failed to prove the woman had freely consented to the marriage. The court therefore accepted her claim and declared the marriage invalid.

Before the LHC, Jamil’s lawyer argued that the registered nikahnama and the woman’s earlier harassment petition were sufficient to establish a valid marriage and requested restoration of the trial court’s judgment. In response, the woman’s counsel argued that the real issue was not whether the marriage documents existed, but whether her consent had been genuine and voluntary. He pointed out that her family had filed criminal cases after her disappearance and that she later recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging she had been abducted and forced into marriage.

In its detailed ruling, the LHC stressed that courts must examine the entire factual background instead of relying solely on documentary evidence. Judges should carefully assess whether the woman’s consent was given freely and without pressure, fear or coercion. They must also consider the circumstances before and after the alleged marriage.

The court further ruled that where the parties are strangers from different cities or localities, judges have a legal duty to examine how the alleged relationship developed. In this case, the court noted there was no convincing evidence explaining how the parties met or formed a relationship. They were not relatives, neighbours, classmates or colleagues and lived more than 100 kilometres apart. The court observed that merely belonging to the same caste was legally insufficient to establish the existence of a genuine relationship.

The LHC clarified that while parties are not legally required to produce phone records, social media messages or photographs to prove a relationship, the complete absence of any explanation regarding how the relationship began significantly weakens a claim of consensual love marriage.

The court also considered the woman’s conduct after the alleged marriage. Although her earlier harassment petition was treated as relevant evidence, it could not be regarded as conclusive. Instead, it had to be evaluated alongside other evidence, including criminal proceedings initiated by her family, recovery proceedings and her statement before a magistrate alleging abduction and forced marriage.

Concluding that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and committed no legal or procedural error, the Lahore High Court dismissed Muhammad Jamil’s constitutional petition and upheld the appellate court’s decision, while laying down important legal principles for future cases involving disputed marriages and questions of free consent.