Islamabad:
The Supreme Court canceled a circular from the Sindh government who refused the right to pension to a girl who divorced after the death of his retired father.
“We note that the circular, which imposes restrictions not supported by law or rules, is empty AB initio, unconstitutional and without legal effect. The calendar of the death of the retiree cannot be legally used to extinguish the surviving girl from the pension”, indicates the judgment of 10 images of 10 years.
A division bench of the Supreme Court, led by judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, stressed that the timely payment of the pension was not only an administrative measure but a constitutional obligation.
“It is deeply worrying that the eligibility of the pension to a surviving girl continues to depend entirely on her matrimonial state. This model of dependence reveals that there is a systematic bias which deals with a girl as a dependent person, with his financial dependence from parent to the spouse.”
“This hypothesis perpetuates not only the stereotypical state of mind on women who are dependent members within the family structure, but do not recognize women as an individual or autonomous which may have the capacity to be financially independent. It is also based on the defective belief that unmarried or divorced failures are financially dependent, while married women are financial.
“It reflects a systematic bias which does not recognize women as autonomous right -handers and does not take into account the lived realities of women. It supposes, first and foremost, that all women depend financially within the traditional family unit – from parents to husband – and secondly, that marriage in itself ensures financial stability.”
The Supreme Court also observed that this decision completely ignored the difficulties and the insecurities faced by married women who may need financial security in the form of a pension, adding that dependence is not a metric for financial stability; It is rather a hypothesis that does not take into account the real economic need and the lived experiences of many women.
“The pretension of surviving girls should be based on individual needs and evaluation rather than a legal framework based on patriarchal hypotheses as to what is stereotypical as an dependence. This form of alleged exclusion based solely on the matrimonial state is unconstitutional, discriminatory and violation of articles 14, 25 and 27 of the Constitution.”
“The concept of linking the admissibility of a girl to the family pension only to his matrimonial state leads to an unjustifiable distinction.”
Judge Ayesha Malik stressed that women are independent right -handers, autonomous and should be entitled to a family pension where financial needs are established. She added that Pakistan’s obligations under international law strengthen the principle that women cannot be refused access to economic rights based on matrimonial status alone.