Husband cannot reclaim dower gold as Khula compensation, LHC rules

The Lahore High Court has ruled that a husband cannot reclaim gold ornaments listed as dower in a Nikahnama (marriage contract) as compensation for Khula (dissolution of marriage) sought by his wife. Justice Raheel Kamran made this decision while dealing with four related petitions stemming from a marital dispute between Dr Rukhsana Kausar and Shahid Nazeer.

Both parties had questioned the Muzaffargarh sessions court's conclusions regarding gold ornaments, maintenance, dowry, and ownership of their house. The marriage was legally dissolved through Khula in 2012. Initially, the family court ruled that the wife had to return the dower received as Badl-i-Khula (Khula compensation), but other issues like maintenance, dowry items, gold ornaments, and delivery expenses were still pending.

In 2018, the family court partially ruled in favor of the couple, granting maintenance and ordering the recovery of dowry items. They also instructed the wife to return 11 tolas of gold, either in full or its value, to the husband. The appellate court approved these decisions in 2020, only adjusting the minor child's maintenance increase from 15 to 10 percent.

Justice Kamran upheld the court's findings on maintenance, noting that the husband had withheld his complete salary record and only presented a certificate indicating his basic pay. This led the court to infer that he had a lower earning capacity. The husband's brother also testified that he owned a Honda Civic, which further questioned his claim of limited finances.

The court determined that financially capable parents should not understate their resources to reduce their obligations towards their children. Concerning the matrimonial house, the judge accepted findings that the wife's father, who was working abroad at the time, had paid for the entire purchase through documented banking transactions.

Bank officials supported these transactions, and they remained largely intact during cross-examination. Since the husband had never contributed to the house purchase despite being listed as part of the dower, the court ruled that it could not be reclaimed as Badl-i-Khula (Khula compensation). The judge also upheld the wife's transfer of the house to her father and the decree granting him possession.

Regarding the 11 tolas of gold, Justice Kamran found that the lower courts made an error in dismissing the absence of documentary evidence, overlooking other factors. Considering the husband's proven financial incapacity, the judge concluded that it was more likely that the gold, too, had been financed by the wife's father. Therefore, the respondent could not claim return of the 11 tolas of gold as Badl-i-Khula, as they did not represent dower financed by the husband's own resources.

The judge upheld the lower courts' findings against the wife regarding 22 tolas of dowry gold, noting that she had never claimed the jewelry was forcibly taken from her. Her inconsistent accounts about leaving the marital home and refusal to provide a video of her sister's wedding, where she was wearing jewelry, supported an adverse inference.

Justice Kamran confirmed the dismissal of the wife's Rs63,000 claim for maternity/delivery expenses.