Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has argued that the right of a wife to maintenance does not depend on the consummation or Rukhsati, the act of leaving her parents’ house to join her husband after marriage.
“A holistic reading of contemporary Islamic jurisprudence, legal promulgations, constitutional protections and judicial precedents affirm that the right of a wife to maintenance does not depend on the consummation or Rukhsati, nor subject to the discretion of the husband.
“It flows unconditionally of the solemnization of a valid marriage and constitutes a binding legal duty,” said a 15 -page sentence created by Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
Shah led a division bank that heard an appeal against an order from the Superior Court of Lahore (LHC) that argued that when a marriage was not consummated, the wife had no right to maintenance.
The SC separated the LHC order. The order asked when a Muslim woman has the right to maintenance within a marriage, and under what circumstances, if any, a husband can be excused from her marriage obligation to pay maintenance to her wife.
The sentence said that the courts in Pakistan have constantly interpreted these provisions in accordance with the constitutional guarantees and Islamic legal principles, arguing that the right of a wife accumulates immediately after the solemnization of a valid marriage.
The trial pointed out that the right of a wife to maintenance becomes absolute when it demonstrates such a will, which is reinforced by it waiting for Rukhsati to be carried out.
“Condition the right of a wife to maintenance in Rukhsati or the consummation undermines legal certainty and allows husbands to evade their financial responsibilities invoking social customs or delaying performance.
“Such approach imposes an unconstitutional burden on women and reinforces the patriarchal norms that make a woman’s financial rights depend on their physical availability or subordination. This is incompatible with the dignity and equality promised under the Constitution,” he said.
The court pointed out that a husband can only be excused from paying maintenance where he demonstrates, through clear, convincing and convincing evidence, that the wife has totally and unjustifiably retired from the marriage relationship, including its emotional, residential and relational aspects.
“The burden of proof is directly in the husband. This exception in favor of the husband must be interpreted closely to avoid supporting structural gender inequalities, which require a cautious and rights -oriented approach to interpret such exceptions, ensuring that maintenance remains a shield against economic vulnerability, not a coercion tool,” he said.
The court also expressed concern about the language used in the LHC decision.
The sentence indicated that the language used by the courts in family law cases makes individual disputes; Actively form the public understanding of rights and obligations within marriage and the broader family structure. Judicial language entails regulatory force.
“It influences how justice is perceived, internalized and practiced. Terms such as ‘surrender’ or ‘submit’ are rooted in patriarchal frameworks and reinforce the obsolete notions of the gender hierarchy and female subordination. These expressions throw women as passive receptors in marriage instead of equal partners, undermining their legal and constitutional status.
“Therefore, it is imperative that reasoning and judicial expression are firmly anchored in the constitutional values of dignity, equality and non -discrimination, while reflecting the lived realities of litigants and the predominant social context.”
Judge Shah pointed out that judges, particularly in family law matters, are not simply arbitrators of individual disputes; They are reformers and opinion leaders capable of guiding society towards progressive and inclusive thought.
“They have a constitutional and ethical duty to adopt language based on rights sensitive to the gender that affirms the equal legal status of women as full and autonomous people. Judicial decisions should avoid stereotypes, promote tolerance and embody the principles of substantive justice.
“When fulfilling this transformative role under the Constitution, the Judiciary does more than interpret the law; highlights social attitudes and advances equality through each word that speaks. Language is never neutral. It reinforces the status quo or drives society towards a fair and equal future,” he said.
