Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has judged that the right of an interview wife does not depend on consumption or Rukhsati – the act of leaving her parents’ house to join her husband after the marriage.
“A holistic reading of contemporary Islamic jurisprudence, statutory texts, constitutional protections and previous judicials affirms that the right of a woman to maintenance is neither conditional for consumption or in Rukhsati, nor subject to the discretion of the husband.
“It follows unconditionally from the solencing of a valid marriage and constitutes a binding legal obligation,” said a 15 -page judgment written by judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
Shah directed a division bench which heard an appeal against an order from the High Court of Lahore (LHC) who judged that when a marriage was not consumed, the wife was not entitled to the maintenance.
The SC has put aside the order of the LHC. The ordinance asked when a Muslim woman is entitled to an interview in a marriage, and under what circumstances, if necessary, a husband may be apologized by his conjugal obligation to pay the interview of his wife.
The judgment indicates that the courts in Pakistan have coherently interpreted these provisions in accordance with the constitutional guarantees and the Islamic legal principles, judging that the right of a wife to the interview accumulates immediately after the celebration of a valid marriage.
The judgment noted that the right of a woman to the interview becomes absolute when she demonstrates such a will, which is reinforced by her expectation as Rukhsati.
“Conditioning a woman’s right to maintenance on Rukhsati or consumption undermines legal certainty and allows husbands to escape her financial responsibilities by invoking social customs or delaying performance.
“Such an approach imposes an unconstitutional burden for women and strengthens the patriarchal standards that make a woman’s financial rights to her physical availability or to her submission.
The court noted that a husband can only be apologized by the payment of the interview in which he proves, by clear, convincing and convincing evidence, that the woman has entirely and unjustified of the marital relationship – including her emotional, residential and relational aspects.
“The burden of evidence is loudly on the husband. This exception in favor of the husband must be closely interpreted to avoid supporting structural gender inequalities, which require a prudent and oriented approach to rights to interpret such exceptions, ensuring that maintenance remains a shield against economic vulnerability, not a coercion tool,” said.
The court also expressed its concern concerning the language used in the LHC decision.
The judgment noted that the language used by the courts in family law affairs does more than resolve individual disputes; He actively shapes the public understanding of the rights and obligations within marriage and the broader family structure. Judicial language has a normative force.
“It influences the way in which justice is perceived, internalized and practiced. Terms such as” surrender “or” submit “are rooted in patriarchal frameworks and reinforce the obsolete notions of gender hierarchy and female subordination.
“It is therefore imperative that judicial reasoning and expression be firmly anchored in the constitutional values of dignity, equality and non-discrimination, while reflecting the lived realities of the litigants and the dominant social context.”
Judge Shah noted that the judges, in particular in matters of family law, are not simply arbitrators of individual disputes; They are reformers and opinion leaders capable of guiding society towards a progressive and inclusive thought.
“They have a constitutional and ethical duty to adopt a language based on gender -sensitive rights which affirms the equal legal status of women as full and autonomous persons. Judicial decisions must avoid stereotypes, promote tolerance and embody the principles of substantial justice.
“By fulfilling this transformative role by virtue of the Constitution, the judiciary does more than interpret law; it reshapes societal attitudes and advances equality through each word it pronounces. The language is never neutral. It strengthens the status quo or propels society towards a just and equal future,” he said.
