A prompt-dower entry proves the promise, not that payment was made

Facts

From the judgment

The parties married in Karachi on 24 November 2018 with dower of ten tolas of gold; rukhsati was on 1 August 2019, they separated in November 2019 and the marriage is issueless. (para 4)

In her khula suit the wife said she had a fixed aversion to her husband because of maltreatment and demands for a flat and a car, that the dower had never been paid, and asked for khula 'for that the plaintiff is ready to forgo her dower amount'. The husband said the gold had been handed over the day before the nikah, relying on the Nikahnama and a photograph of her wearing gold. (paras 5-6)

Reconciliation failed on 9 June 2021 and the marriage was dissolved by khula. On the issue whether dower was paid, the husband gave evidence alone, produced no receipt and called none of the nikah witnesses, the Vakil or the Nikah Registrar. (paras 7, 22)

In a separate suit she claimed dowry articles listed at Rs. 2,363,515 plus 21.5 tolas of gold, 20 tolas of silver and her documents. He denied any dowry, but in cross-examination admitted the articles were brought, and his counsel later admitted the articles listed by the court. (paras 8, 32)

Procedural history

From the judgment

1. 22 November 2022Family Suit No. 493 of 2020 (khula), Family Judge, SukkurKhula (dissolved 9 June 2021); payment of dower not proved; husband not entitled to its return (para 7)
2. 17 May 2023Family Appeal No. 01 of 2023, Additional District Judge-III, SukkurDecree set aside entirely; wife to return the Haq Mahar immediately (para 2, 9)
3. 27 November 2023Family Suit No. 85 of 2021 (dowry articles), Family Judge, SukkurDecreed for the listed articles (including gold) or their value and documents; cash and silver refused (para 8)
4. 16 May 2024Family Appeal No. 03 of 2024, V-Additional District Judge, SukkurDecree confined to admitted articles (Rs. 1,621,615) and documents; gold, cash and silver refused (para 3, 9)
5. Heard 18 September 2026; announced 28 September 2026C.P. Nos. S-144 of 2023 and S-107 of 2024, Sindh High Court, Sukkur BenchBoth allowed; Family Court decrees restored (gold capped at 21.5 tolas); articles to be handed over within 60 days (para 37)

Questions of law

1. Is the first appellate judgment, which set aside the dissolution decree and directed the wife to return the dower, sustainable in law? Framed by the court

   The court's answer: No. The Nikahnama proved the dower was prompt, not that it was paid; the husband failed to prove payment; only dower received can be restored on khula; and the appeal could not touch the dissolution itself. (para 15(i), 17-29)

2. Is the second appellate judgment, confining the dowry decree to admitted articles and disallowing the gold, sustainable in law? Framed by the court

   The court's answer: No. The wife's evidence proved an ordinary list, the reasoning about her family's means rested on no evidence, and the gold was refused by misreading the trial decree; the concurrent refusal of cash and silver stands. (para 15(ii), 31-35)

3. What relief should follow? Framed by the court

   The court's answer: Both decrees of the Family Court restored, with gold limited to 21.5 tolas, hand-over within 60 days and a money alternative computed in execution. (para 15(iii), 36-37)

Arguments

From the judgment

Petitioner or appellant

The dower was never paid: the Nikahnama does not record payment and column 13 says only '10 tolas'; column 14 was filled in later; the appellate court misread her cross-examination about the photograph; the husband examined no one. On dowry, her receipts were on file but never looked at, the husband admitted the articles in cross-examination and through counsel, and the finding on her family's means ignored the material (para 11).

Respondent

The dower was paid the day before the nikah; the Nikahnama, a public document she never challenged, records it as prompt; she admitted her signature; having taken khula she must restore the dower in Shariah (verse 2:229). She produced no documents; custom is for the groom's side to send the bridal jewellery before the nikah. On dowry she went beyond her pleadings and proved no delivery; the appellate court is the last court of fact and Article 199 is narrow (paras 10, 12).

Court's reasoning

From the judgment

Limits of Article 199

With one statutory appeal and no revision, the High Court does not reopen findings of fact except for misreading, non-reading or no evidence causing a miscarriage of justice (Fozia Mazhar, PLD 2024 SC 771; Hamad Hassan, 2023 SCMR 1434). The restraint applies fully to concurrent findings; on dower and the gold the courts below disagreed. (para 16)

What the Nikahnama proves

Dower is a mandatory obligation vesting in the wife, presumed prompt if unspecified (s.10 MFLO), and is not presumed discharged. Columns 13, 14 and 15 each answer their own question (Fakhra Jabeen, PLD 2026 SC 20): the entry here showed ten tolas, prompt, but no payment. To move from 'prompt' to 'paid' is to add to the document, not to read it; and any doubt goes in the wife's favour (Muhammad Yousaf, 2024 SCMR 1078), though here the columns had not been filled by others. (para 17-20)

The burden of proving payment

Non-payment is a negative averment; payment is an affirmative plea of discharge, so the husband bore the onus. He produced no receipt and called none of the people named in the Nikahnama, nor the Nikah Registrar. A photograph of a bride in gold proves only that she wore gold; her answers in cross-examination had to be read as a whole. (para 21-23)

Her interpolation plea fails, but does not matter

Her claim that column 14 was added later failed: she admitted her signature and never sought correction or cancellation. But she did not need it, because the Nikahnama as it stands does not record payment. (para 24)

Only dower 'received' is restored on khula

The proviso to section 10(4) of the Family Courts Act, as it stands in Sindh, requires restoration of 'the Haq Mahar received by the wife'. Those are words of limitation: restoration presupposes a finding of receipt. As in Rafia Yaqoob (2026 SCMR 561), the wife's liability on khula is created and bounded by statute; an order to return a dower never received, in vague terms that fix no quantity, cannot stand. (para 25-27)

The consideration for khula

She sought khula offering to forgo her dower. Relinquishing a subsisting unpaid claim to ten tolas of gold is a real consideration (Zar-e-Khula), consistent with verse 2:229, and she cannot claim that dower later. (para 28)

The dissolution could not be appealed

Under section 14(2)(a) no appeal lies against dissolution by khula, so the appeal was competent only on the dower. Setting aside the whole decree purported to undo the dissolution and was without jurisdiction to that extent. (para 29)

Unproved allegations against the wife

The husband's pleaded allegations about her chastity, unsupported by any evidence, fell far short of the standard required in family cases and supported her case of a fixed aversion not of her own making. (para 30)

Proving dowry articles

Under section 17 the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order does not strictly apply in Family Courts. Following Shafique Sultan (2017 SCMR 393), her detailed, consistent evidence, supported by her brother and unshaken in cross-examination, against the husband's bare denial (and his admissions) proved an ordinary list. The appellate court's view that the list was beyond her father's means rested on no evidence, an answer of ignorance proves nothing, and the gold was refused by misreading the trial decree. (para 31-34)

Relief

Cash and silver stay refused on concurrent findings; gold is limited to the 21.5 tolas pleaded. The articles are to be handed over in specie within 60 days, with their value as an alternative computed in execution, a reasonable deduction for perishable items and none for gold, valued at the rate on the date of payment (Shafqat Ali, 2026 SCMR 494). (para 35-37)

Judicial observations

From the judgment

The court's exact words.

Practical implications

Our analysis

For lawyers

• For the wife: plead non-payment of dower expressly and ask for an issue on payment; the burden then falls on the husband.
• For the husband: if you plead payment, prove it with receipts, the nikah witnesses, the Vakil or the Nikah Registrar; the 'prompt' entry and a wedding photograph will not do.
• Where the wife elects khula and dower is unpaid, frame the consideration as relinquishment of the unpaid claim, and state it in the prayer.
• In a dowry claim, give a detailed list, file an affidavit, call a family witness and keep the claim within what is pleaded; resist arguments about the family's means that rest on no evidence.
• Do not seek to set aside a khula dissolution on appeal; confine any appeal to the financial consequences.

For everyone else

• If your Nikahnama says your dower is 'prompt' but you never received it, you do not have to give it back when you get khula. Giving up the unpaid dower can be the price of khula.
• If your husband says he already paid the dower, he has to prove it.
• You can prove your dowry articles with your own detailed evidence and a family witness; receipts help but are not strictly required.

General points drawn from this judgment, not advice on your own case.

Limits of this judgment

Our analysis

• Decided on the Sindh text of section 10(4), which the Court noted is framed differently from the Punjab provision (section 10(5)) considered in Rafia Yaqoob (para 26).
• The finding on payment of dower binds these parties; a separate suit (F.C. Suit No. 111 of 2022, Karachi) is otherwise unaffected (para 37(iv)).
• The value of any article not handed over is left to the Family Court in execution.

Related

Our guide

• Khula in Pakistan: Complete Procedure, Cost, Timeline & Legal Rights

Discussed in our brief

• Supreme Court Shiqaq Judgment 2026 | SC shiqaq judgment clarifies khula consent and dower.