Husband cannot reclaim dower gold as Khula compensation, LHC rules

The Lahore High Court has ruled that a husband is not entitled to reclaim gold ornaments listed as dower in a Nikahnama as consideration for Khula, a process of dissolving marriage in Pakistan. Justice Raheel Kamran made this judgment while resolving four related petitions stemming from a marital dispute between Dr Rukhsana Kausar and Shahid Nazeer.

The couple had challenged the findings of a Muzaffargarh sessions court regarding gold ornaments, maintenance, dowry and ownership of the couple's house. The marriage was finalized through Khula in 2012. Initially, the family court decided that the wife was obligated to return the dower received as Badl-i-Khula (compensation for Khula).

However, other disputes such as maintenance, dowry articles, gold ornaments and delivery expenses remained pending. In 2018, the family court granted partial relief, awarding maintenance and instructing the wife to recover the dowry articles. This decision was upheld by the appellate court in 2020, except for reducing the minor child's maintenance increase from 15 to 10 percent.

The court upheld the husband's financial incapacity, noting that he had not provided a comprehensive salary record and produced only a basic pay certificate. Moreover, the husband's brother testified that he owned a Honda Civic, further suggesting the husband's financial means. The court held that the financially capable parent cannot understate his resources to minimize his obligations towards his child.

The judge also upheld findings that the wife's father financed the purchase of their matrimonial house through documented bank transactions, with bank officials confirming the transactions. Since the husband never actually paid for the house, despite it being included in the dower, he cannot reclaim it as Badl-i-Khula (dower received as Khula compensation).

Regarding the 11 tolas of gold, the court found that the lower courts erred by dismissing the absence of documentary evidence. Given the husband's established financial incapacity, it was more probable that the gold had been funded by the wife's father. Consequently, the respondent cannot claim the return of the gold ornaments as Badl-i-Khula as they did not represent dower financed or paid for by him.

The court upheld the findings against the wife for the 22 tolas of dowry gold, given her lack of claims regarding the jewelry's removal. Her inconsistent accounts about leaving the matrimonial home and refusal to produce evidence of her wearing the jewelry during her sister's wedding also supported an adverse inference. The court dismissed the wife's Rs63,000 claim for maternity/delivery expenses.