Supreme Court: Husband has no right over wife’s property without her consent

The court’s division bench, supervised by Justice Isa, stated that a husband could not ‘guarantee’ or encumber his wife’s property without her consent.

Supreme

The Supreme Court has stated that a husband has no “right” over the property of his wife without her consent.

Justice Qazi Faez Isa stated, “The essential rights in the Constitution include the ‘right to attain, hold and dispose of property’ and ‘no person shall be forcibly deprived of his estate save under the law’ these provisions do not discriminate between men and women. Therefore, unless a married woman chooses to gift, sell or otherwise dispose of her property, neither her husband nor any male family member has any right over it.”

The verdict was given on the appeal of a mother-in-law whose husband guaranteed their daughter-in-law one Kanal land with an entirely constructed house in dowry.

The Supreme Court’s division bench, supervised by Justice Isa, also stated that a husband could not ‘guarantee’ or encumber his wife’s property without her consent.

Case

Mehreen and Mansoor were married on the 15th of May, 1995. Sixteen years after their marriage, on the 30th of June, 2011, Mehreen filed a case claiming a house, measuring one Kanal which she said constituted part of her dowry and was as mentioned in the Clause 16 of the marriage certificate.

Mehreen arrayed her father-in-law, Haji Muhammad Ishaq Jan and mother-in-law, Khurshida Ishaq, as the only defendants in the suit. The learned family judge decreed the suit on the 3rd of May 2014.

The father-in-law and the mother-in-law filed separate petitions, but both were terminated.

Later, the mother-in-law filed a petition through renowned lawyer Sardar Muhammad Aslam in the apex court.

The court recorded that Khurshida was not a guarantor to the marriage certificate, nor had she, at any point, approved to transfer the property to Mehreen.

According to the judgement, “Khurshida’s husband could not have made an assurance on her behalf with regard to the property. Mehreen also did not array her husband as a party to the case even though he was a necessary party to that. Mehreen unquestionably had a legal right with regard to the dower promised by her husband at the time of marriage, as declared in the marriage certificate, and could claim the value of the property from him; however, she chosen not to do so but instead lay claim to the property. Mehreen could still claim from her husband any part of her dower, which remains unpaid.”

The court also stated that Khurshida attained land in the year 1964 on which afterwards a house was built. The reason that Muhammad Ishaq Jan was a guarantor of the property it has no lawful foundation since a husband has no right to his wife’s estate.

What are your views on this? Share in the comments bar below.

  • یہ جج اپنا راستہ سیدھا کر رہا ھے کرپشن کرو اور پراپرٹیاں بیوی اور بچوں کے نام کردو اور پھر بولو کہ جی مجھے معلوم نہیں میرے بیوی یا میرے بچوں نے پراپرٹیاں کہاں سے بنائی ہیں میرا ان پر کوئی اختیار ہی نہیں ھے میں ان سے پوچھ بھی نہیں سکتا اس جج پر ریفرنس دائر ھے اور یہ ابھی تک جج بنا بیٹھا ھے کوئی پوچھنے والا نہیں ھے عجب جج کی غذب کہانی چل رہی ھے


  • Featured Content⭐

    >