Husband Can’t Take Back Gold Given to Wife Despite Separation: LHC

The Lahore High Court has ruled that a husband is not allowed to reclaim gold ornaments that were listed as dower in a Nikahnama, even if they were given to his wife as consideration for Khula, which is a form of divorce. Justice Raheel Kamran made this decision while deciding four related cases stemming from a legal dispute between Dr Rukhsana Kausar and Shahid Nazeer.

The spouses had appealed a ruling from a Muzaffargarh sessions court regarding gold ornaments and other issues, such as maintenance, dowry, and ownership of their home. The marriage was legally ended through Khula in 2012. Initially, a family court held that the wife had to return the dower received as Badl-i-Khula, while other matters like maintenance, dowry articles, gold ornaments, and delivery costs were still pending.

In 2018, the family court partially granted the suit, awarded maintenance, and ordered the recovery of dowry items, as well as the return of 11 tolas of gold or its equivalent in value to the husband. This decision was upheld by an appellate court in 2020, with only a minor adjustment to the child's maintenance - from an annual increase of 15 percent to 10 percent.

Justice Kamran upheld the concurrent findings, noting the husband's failure to provide his complete salary record, which led to an adverse inference about his actual earning capacity. He also considered testimony from the husband's brother, who claimed to own a Honda Civic, further weakening the husband's claim of limited financial means.

The court did not allow the financially capable parent to understate his resources to lessen his responsibility towards his child. Regarding the matrimonial house, the judge ruled that the wife's father, who was working abroad at the time, had financed the entire purchase through documented bank transactions, and his testimony was largely unchallenged during cross-examination.

Since the husband had never actually paid for the house, despite it being part of the dower, the judge held that it could not be reclaimed as Badl-i-Khula. The wife also transferred the house to her father, and the court granted her possession. On the claim for 11 tolas of gold, Justice Kamran found that the lower courts had made an error by treating the lack of documentary evidence as decisive while disregarding supporting circumstances.

Given the husband's established financial incapacity, the judge concluded that it was more probable that the gold had been financed by the wife's father. He ruled that the respondent could not claim the return of the ornaments as Badl-i-Khula, as they were not dower paid from his own resources. Concerning the 22 tolas of dowry gold, the judge upheld the findings against the wife, noting her consistent statements about not claiming the jewelry was forcibly taken from her.

Inconsistent statements about when she left the marital home and her refusal to produce a video of her sister's wedding showing her wearing jewelry after leaving her husband's home supported an adverse inference. Additionally, Justice Kamran upheld the dismissal of the wife's Rs63,000 claim for maternity and delivery expenses.