Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has established that a wife’s right to maintenance is not conditional on enforcement or Rukhsati – the act of leaving her parents’ house to join her husband after marriage.
“A holistic reading of contemporary Islamic case law, statutory decisions, constitutional protection and legal precedent confirms that a wife’s right to maintenance is neither conditional on enforcement nor rukhsati or subject to man’s estimation.
“It flows unconditionally from the solemnity of a valid marriage and constitutes a binding legal duty,” said a 15-page judgment written by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
Shah led a division bench that heard an appeal against a Lahore High Court (LHC) order that found that when a marriage was not completed, Kona was not entitled to maintenance.
S SC Departed the LHC order. The order was asked when a Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance in a marriage, and under what circumstances, if any, a man can be apologized from his marital obligation to pay maintenance to his wife.
The judgment said that the courts in Pakistan have consistently interpreted these provisions in accordance with constitutional guarantees and Islamic legal principles, claiming that a wife’s right to maintenance is immediately accrued to the celebration of a valid marriage.
The verdict noted that a wife’s right to maintenance will be absolutely when she demonstrates such a will, which is reinforced by her waiting for Rukhsati to be implemented.
“To condition a wife’s right to maintenance of rukhsati or enforcement undermine legal security and allow men to avoid their financial responsibility by invoking social customs or delaying performance.
“Such an approach imposes a constitutional burden on women and strengthens patriarchal norms that make a woman’s financial rights conditional on her physical availability or submissiveness. This is incompatible with the dignity and gender equality promised by the Constitution,” it said.
The court noted that a man may only be excused for paying maintenance where, through clear, boiling and compelling evidence, he proves that Kona completely and unjustly withdrew from the marriage relationship – including its emotional, residential and relational aspects.
“The burden of proof lies square on the man. This exception in favor of the man must narrowly interpreted to avoid supporting structural gender inequalities that require a cautious and rights -oriented approach to interpreting such exceptions, ensuring that maintenance remains a shield against economic vulnerability, not a tool for coercion,” said it.
The court also expressed concern about the language used in the LHC decision.
The judgment noted that the language employed by courts in family law matters does more than resolving individual disputes; It actively forms public understanding of rights and obligations within marriage and the wider family structure. Court language bears normative strength.
“It affects how justice is perceived, internalized and practiced. Expressions such as ‘surrender’ or ‘submission’ are rooted in a patriarchal framework and amplifier outdated notions of gender hierarchy and female subordinate. These terms throw women as passive recipients in marriage rather than equal partners who undermine their legal and constitutional status.
“It is therefore imperative that judicial reasoning and expressions are firmly rooted in the constitutional values of dignity, equality and non-differential treatment, while at the same time living realities of litigation and the prevailing social context.”
Justice Shah noted that judges, especially in family law issues, are not just arbitrators of individual disputes; They are reformers and thought leaders who are capable of leading society to progressive and inclusive thinking.
“They carry a constitutional and ethical duty to adopt gender -sensitive, rights -based languages that confirm women’s equal legal status as full and autonomous persons. Legal decisions must avoid stereotypes, promote tolerance and embody the principles of substantial justice.
“By fulfilling this transformative role under the Constitution, the judiciary makes more than interpreting the law; it transforms societal attitudes and promotes equality through every word it speaks. Language is never neutral. It either strengthens the status quo or promotes society against a fair and equal future,” said it.
