The Lahore High Court (LHC) has overturned a lower court ruling that compelled a woman to return 11 tolas of gold, or its cash equivalent, to her husband as compensation for obtaining khula. The court found that the funds for purchasing the gold listed as dower in the nikahnama were provided by the woman’s father.
Justice Raheel Kamran issued a detailed judgment while resolving multiple petitions and civil proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute between Dr Rukhsana Kausar and Shahid Nazir. The LHC partially ruled in favor of Dr Kausar, holding that the husband was not entitled to reclaim the 11 tolas of gold as khula compensation. However, the court upheld lower courts’ rejection of her claim that the husband retained 22 tolas of gold and other jewellery.
Petitions filed by the husband were dismissed, and other contested issues were left unchanged by the court.
Dr Rukhsana had initially filed a suit on December 23, 2011, in the Family Court seeking divorce, maintenance for herself and their minor son Rohan Shahid, return of dowry items, and reimbursement of maternity expenses. She alleged that before marriage, the husband and his family promised a house and 11 tolas of gold as dower but lacked sufficient funds to fulfill these promises.
At their request, her parents financed both the house and the 11 tolas of gold, which were then recorded as dower in the nikahnama. She also claimed her parents had provided her with 22 tolas of gold as dowry. Due to neglect, lack of maintenance, and mistreatment by her husband, she left the matrimonial home with her son to live with her parents.
The husband denied these allegations, asserting he purchased the house himself and provided the 11 tolas of gold. He claimed the woman took all the gold when leaving the home.
The Family Court dissolved the marriage through khula on April 28, 2012, ordering the dower gold to be returned to the husband as khula compensation. It also awarded maintenance for the iddat period and the minor child, and ordered the return of dowry articles, but rejected the claim regarding gold jewellery retained by the husband. The court dismissed the woman’s claim about the house purchase, as the husband failed to prove he paid for it.
Both parties appealed, but on February 20, 2020, an additional district judge largely upheld the Family Court’s decision, only reducing the child maintenance annual increase from 15% to 10%.
The dispute over the house later reached civil courts. The woman transferred the house to her father, Fazal Hussain Asim, via tamleek, a lifetime property transfer. The husband challenged this transfer, filing suit to cancel it, while the father sought possession and profits from the house. The husband’s suit was dismissed, the father’s claim allowed, and the husband was ordered to vacate the property. These rulings were also challenged before the LHC.
In examining the case, the LHC found clear documentary evidence showing the woman’s father funded the house purchase through a foreign currency account abroad. The money was converted to Pakistani rupees, a demand draft was issued and deposited into the husband’s brother’s account, then used to pay for the house. The husband failed to provide credible evidence that he financed the purchase himself.
Since the house was legally registered in the woman’s name, the court found no legal barrier to her transferring it to her father. The claim that the tamleek was invalid due to lack of possession transfer was also dismissed.
The pivotal question was whether the woman must return the 11 tolas of gold listed as dower in the nikahnama. The court confirmed the gold had indeed been given to her, but the source of the funds was key. After reviewing evidence and witness testimonies, the court found the woman’s account consistent, while the husband failed to prove he provided the money or had the financial means.
Significantly, during cross-examination, the husband’s counsel suggested the woman’s father had given the money as a loan to the husband. The court interpreted this as supporting the woman’s claim that her father provided the funds for the gold purchase.
Consequently, the LHC ruled the lower courts erred in ordering the return of the 11 tolas of gold to the husband and set aside that part of the orders.
However, the court rejected the woman’s claim that the husband possessed 22 tolas of gold and other jewellery. She stated she left the home wearing only the clothes on her back, leaving the jewellery behind, but inconsistencies in her account and the absence of a wedding video to substantiate her claim led the court to uphold the Family Court’s adverse inference against her.
Thus, the LHC maintained the earlier rulings on the disputed 22 tolas of gold and jewellery while clearing the woman of the obligation to return the 11 tolas of gold given as dower.
