When Haq Mahar payable in Pakistan. Supreme court Latest case law on Haqmahar
سپریم کورٹ کا بڑا فیصلہ۔
عورت جب طلب کرے دینا ھو گا شادی کے دوران طلاق ہونا ضروری نہیں۔
سپرئم کورٹ کیس کے حقائق
درخواست گزار نے 10 فروری 2017 کو مدعا علیہ نمبر 1 سے شادی کی تھی۔ نکاح نامے میں بیوی کا مہر پانچ لاکھ بتایا گیا ہے۔ درخواست گزار کی جانب سے مہر کی ادائیگی نہیں کی گئی۔ جواب دہندہ نمبر 1
بی بی نے کیس کیا حق مہر کے لیے اور خرچہ کیا
ریکوری کے لیے
لیڈی کا کیس ڈگری ہو گیا اور ٹرائل کورٹ نے حق مہر اور خرچہ ادا کرنے کا حکم دیا۔
خاوند نے فیصلہ کو چیلنج کیا ایڈشنل سیشن ڈسٹرکٹ جج کے پاس اپیل میں۔
ڈسٹرکٹ جج نے فیصلہ دیا کہ چونکہ میرج ختم نہیں ہوئی لہزا ابھی حق مہر قابل ادائگی نہیں ہوا۔
جس کے بعد لیڈی نے ہائی کورٹ میں فیصلہ چیلنج ہوا اور ہائی کورٹ نے فیملی کورٹ کا فیصلہ بحال کر کے حق مہر ادائیگی کا حکم دیا۔
خاوند نے سپریم کورٹ میں فیصلہ چیلنج کیا سپریم کورٹ نے حکم دیا کے رقم کی ادائیگی کا طریقہ بتایا گیا ہے مسلم فیملی ارڈیننس میں اگر طریقہ ادائیگی نکاح نامہ میں نہ لکھا ہو تو سارا حق مہر قابل ادائیگی ہو گا ان ڈیمانڈ۔ یعنی جب چاہے بیوی طلب کر سکتی ھے۔ سپریم کورٹ نے کیس خارج کر دیا خاوند کا جرمانے کے ساتھ۔
Present:
Justice Qazi Faez Isa, CJ
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan
Justice Athar Minallah
Civil Petition No.2734-L of 2023
(Against the judgment dated 24 May
2023 passed by Lahore High Court,
Lahore in Writ Petition No.5278/2021)
Khalid Pervaiz
....Petitioner
Versus
Samina, etc
….Respondents
For the petitioner:
Ch. Zulfiqar Ali Hagran, ASC.
(through video link from Lahore)
For the respondents:
N.R.
Date of Hearing:
20 November 2023
ORDER
Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner had married respondent No.1 on 10 February 2017. The
Nikahnama mentioned the wife’s mehr (dower) to be five hundred
thousand rupees. The mehr was not paid by the petitioner to the
respondent No.1, who filed a suit on 8 January 2018, which was
decided in her favour on 23 February 2019. The petitioner (defendant in
the suit) was directed to pay to the respondent No.1 the mehr and
maintenance with annual increase of ten percent. The petitioner
appealed the judgment and decree of the Family Court and the learned
Additional District Judge partly allowed it, by holding that the wife was
not entitled to her mehr as her marriage subsisted. The wife (respondent
No.1) successfully assailed the judgment of the appellate court before
the High Court which restored the judgment of the learned Civil Judge.
2.
The learned counsel states that since the marriage subsists the
mehr is not payable. We enquired whether the mehr has since been paid
to the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel states that the
petitioner is paying maintenance as decreed but has not paid the mehr
because the parties are still married, and since the instant petition is
pending
Civil Petition No.2734-L of 2023
2
3.
Mehr is an Islamic concept mentioned in the Holy Quran,
(An-Nisa (4) verse 4 and Al-Baqrah (2) verses 236-7) and it is specifically
recognised by the law of Pakistan, that is, section 2 of the Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. Mehr has to be paid
whenever demanded by the wife. Section 10 of The Muslim Family Laws
Ordinance, 1961 stipulates that:
‘Where no details about the mode of payment of
dower are specified in the nikahnama, or the
marriage contract, the entire amount of the
dower shall be prescribed to be payable on
demand.’
In the case of Syed Muhammad v Mst. Zeenat (PLD 2001 SC 128) the
Supreme Court held that, mehr (dower) can be demanded during the
subsistence of the marriage, and that the husband is under an
obligation to pay it.
4.
The impugned judgment accords with the law and the learned
counsel has not been able to point out any illegality therein. It
transpired during the hearing that the petitioner has two wives, but the
petitioner did not fulfil his obligations towards the respondent No.1
when he failed to pay the mehr demanded by the respondent No.1. The
respondent No.1 had to file a suit for recovery of the mehr and
maintenance, and the petitioner unnecessarily involved the respondent
No.1 in litigation, which reached this Court after six and half years.
This kind of frivolous litigation is paralysing the judicial system of
Pakistan. The petitioner took up an untenable defence, and perpetuated
it probably because costs were not imposed upon him and the courts
did not insist that the decision of the Family Court should first be
complied with before entertaining a challenge to it. The excuse put
forward by the learned counsel that, since the decision was challenged
it was not complied with, is untenable. We reiterate that if a decision is
challenged it does not mean that it becomes ineffective, and need not be
complied with.
5.
There was no justification to assail the decision of the High Court,
which was in accordance with the law. Therefore, leave to appeal is
declined and this petition is dismissed. Imposing sufficient costs may
have had the salutary effect to make the petitioner act reasonably.
Courts should not hesitate in imposing costs, and compensatory costs
too when required. We were inclined to impose substantial costs
Civil Petition No.2734-L of 2023
3
however, the learned counsel states that the mehr (dower) will be paid
to the respondent No.1 through bankers cheque/pay order/demand
draft or will be deposited in the Family Court within one month.
Therefore, in addition to imposing costs throughout we impose
compensatory costs to the extent of one hundred thousand rupees on
the petitioner considering the decrease in the value of money. If the
mehr and the said costs are not paid the Family Court shall execute this
order, which may include attachment of the properties of the petitioner.
Islamabad
20 November 2023.
(Umair)
Chief Justice
Judge
Judge
Approved for report
Comments
Post a Comment