ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that cruelty within marriage is not limited to physical violence, but also includes mental, verbal and emotional abuse as well as behavior that makes it impossible for a woman to live with dignity and security in her home.
In a detailed 17-page judgement, authored by Justice Ayesha Malik, the court overruled the judgments of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the family court, ruling that a court cannot grant khula without the woman’s consent, adding that mental abuse in a marital relationship is as serious as physical violence.
The court further found that a man’s second marriage without the first wife’s consent constitutes a valid reason for dissolution of the marriage.
The judgment urged the courts to use careful and respectful language when dealing with cases involving women, clarifying that while Parliament did not rigidly define the term “cruelty” in law, it provided examples to guide the courts.
“These examples are not exhaustive but illustrative,” the court observed, noting that judges are empowered to recognize various forms of cruelty and dispense justice accordingly.
The court elaborated that cruelty goes beyond physical harm and includes conduct that inflicts mental or emotional pain and makes it impossible for a woman to live in her marital home with respect and peace.
The SC further noted that the courts have consistently recognized cruelty as conduct not limited to physical violence, adding that it may consist of separate acts which, although seemingly unrelated, cumulatively cause harm and make continued cohabitation unbearable for the wife.
Cruelty can consist of any behavior that causes a woman anxiety, hopelessness or loss of self-confidence. If the effects are severe and make marriage impossible, it qualifies as cruelty, the court ruled.
The judgment also refers to international law, stating that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits “torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” and that the UN Human Rights Committee has extended these protections to cases involving domestic violence in marriage to ensure justice and protection for victims.
The SC observed that acts of cruelty must be assessed with sensitivity to social context, personalities and the practical realities of married life.
It cautioned that family courts should not apply criminal evidentiary standards in such cases, as the question is not whether an offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the conduct complained of makes it unreasonable to expect a wife to continue in that relationship.
Emphasizing that cruelty was a subjective measure, the court said it should be assessed based on the impact on the woman concerned rather than through rigid legal classifications or technical rules of evidence.
The judgment further detailed that cruelty can manifest as physical abuse such as slapping, beating or assault.
Psychological cruelty such as humiliation, verbal abuse or false allegations of infidelity; emotional cruelty through neglect or indifference; or oppressive household environments where hostility or coercion from the in-laws is tolerated or encouraged by the husband, the judgment noted.
The SC accepted the woman’s appeal and declared the previous family court and appeal decisions as well as the May 2024 order of the PHC null and void to the extent of khula, mehr and maintenance.
It held that the marriage was dissolved due to the husband’s second marriage and therefore the wife was not obliged to return her mehr.
The petitioner’s lawyer had argued that the family and appellate courts had ignored her client’s statements and evidence, granted khula without her consent and deprived her of her mehr.
The family court had concluded that the husband never paid mehr and had treated it as a waiver instead of khula.
However, the SC ruled that such findings were legally erroneous and reaffirmed that cruelty must be judged in the light of each woman’s experience in her marriage.
