ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that cruelty within marriage is not limited to physical violence but also includes psychological, verbal and emotional abuse, as well as behaviors that prevent a woman from living with dignity and security in her home.
In a detailed 17-page judgment written by Justice Ayesha Malik, the court set aside the verdicts of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the family court, ruling that a court cannot grant khula without the consent of the woman, adding that psychological violence in a domestic relationship is as serious as physical violence.
The court further held that second marriage of a husband without the consent of the first wife constitutes a valid ground for dissolution of marriage.
The judgment urges courts to use careful and respectful language when dealing with cases involving women and clarifies that while Parliament has not rigidly defined the term “cruelty” in law, it has provided examples to guide courts.
“These examples are not exhaustive but illustrative,” the court observed, emphasizing that judges are empowered to recognize different forms of cruelty and dispense justice accordingly.
The court clarified that cruelty extends beyond physical harm, encompassing behaviors that inflict mental or emotional pain and prevent a woman from living respectfully and peacefully in her matrimonial home.
The SC further observed that courts have consistently recognized cruelty as conduct not limited to physical violence, adding that it may consist of distinct acts which, although seemingly unrelated, cumulatively cause harm and make continued cohabitation unbearable for the wife.
Cruelty can be any behavior that causes a woman distress, despair or loss of confidence. If the consequences are serious and make married life impossible, it qualifies as cruelty, the court ruled.
The judgment also references international law, stating that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits “torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” and that the United Nations Human Rights Committee has extended these protections to cases of domestic violence within marriage to ensure justice and protection for victims.
The SC noted that acts of cruelty must be assessed taking into account the social context, personalities and practical realities of married life.
She warned that family courts should not apply criminal standards of proof to such cases because the question is not whether an offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather whether the conduct complained of makes it unreasonable to expect a wife to continue that relationship.
Stressing that cruelty is a subjective measure, the court said it should be assessed based on the impact on the woman concerned rather than through rigid legal classifications or technical rules of evidence.
The judgment further clarifies that cruelty can manifest itself through physical violence such as slapping, beating or assault.
Psychological cruelty such as humiliation, verbal abuse or false allegations of infidelity; emotional cruelty through neglect or indifference; or oppressive family environments where hostility or coercion from in-laws is tolerated or encouraged by the husband, the ruling notes.
The SC accepted the woman’s appeal and declared the earlier decisions of the Family and Appellate Court, as well as the May 2024 order of the PHC, null and void to the extent of khula, mehr and alimony.
It ruled that the marriage was dissolved due to the husband’s second marriage and therefore the wife was not liable to return her mehr.
The petitioner’s lawyer had argued that the family and appellate courts ignored his client’s statements and evidence, granting her khula without her consent and depriving her of her mehr.
The family court had found that the husband never paid the mehr and treated it as a waiver instead of the khula.
However, the SC ruled that these findings were legally erroneous and reaffirmed that cruelty must be judged in light of each woman’s experience within her marriage.
