Summary Lahore High Court ruled that husbands cannot reclaim dower-funded gold in khula unless they prove they personally paid for it, rejecting unsupported financial claims.
LAHORE (Muhammad Ashfaq) - The Lahore High Court has ruled that a husband seeking return of dower in a khula case can only claim what he personally paid, holding that he cannot reclaim gold purchased with money provided by the wife’s father.
Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh announced the ruling while deciding a dispute between Dr Rukhsana Kausar and Shahid Nazir. The court partially accepted the wife’s petition and set aside an order requiring her to return 11 tolas of gold or its equivalent value to her husband.
The court observed that the overall evidence on record established that the wife’s father had provided the money used to purchase the 11 tolas of gold. The husband, meanwhile, failed to produce credible evidence proving that he had paid for the gold himself.
The court held that merely recording gold as dower in the nikahnama was insufficient to establish the husband’s entitlement to its return. According to the judgment, the principle requiring return of dower in khula applies only when it is established that the dower was actually paid by the husband.
The court also noted inconsistencies in the husband’s claims about his financial position. While he claimed to have the means to purchase a house worth Rs1.95 million and 11 tolas of gold, he portrayed himself as financially weaker when the issue of maintenance for the minor child arose.
The court stressed that providing maintenance to a minor child is not only a legal obligation but also a moral and social responsibility of the father. A father cannot evade this responsibility by understating his income.
Regarding ownership of the house, the court said bank records and witness testimony established that the purchase money had been provided by the woman’s father. The husband failed to produce reliable documentary evidence supporting his claim that he had purchased the property from his own resources.
The court also upheld the woman’s transfer of ownership of the house to her father, rejecting the husband’s objection that possession had not formally been handed over to him. The court held that the woman was the legal owner and was residing in the house, making a separate formal transfer of physical possession unnecessary in the circumstances.
However, the court upheld the lower court’s rejection of the woman’s claims concerning 22 tolas of jewellery and Rs63,000 in childbirth expenses. The woman failed to establish that the jewellery had remained in the possession of her husband or his family, while she also could not provide reliable evidence that her parents had paid the childbirth expenses.
The Lahore High Court partially allowed the wife’s petition, set aside the order requiring her to return 11 tolas of gold or its value to the husband, upheld the remaining portions of the judgment and dismissed the husband’s other petitions.
