ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has held that a wife’s right to maintenance is not contingent upon consummation or rukhsatithe act of leaving her parents’ house to join her husband after marriage.
“A holistic reading of contemporary Islamic jurisprudence, statutory enactments, constitutional protections, and judicial precedents affirms that a wife’s right to maintenance is neither contingent upon consummation or rukhsati, nor subject to the discretion of the husband.
“It flows unconditionally from the solemnization of a valid marriage and constitutes a binding legal duty,” said a 15-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
Shah was leading a division bench that heard an appeal against a Lahore High Court (LHC) order that held that when a marriage was not consummated, the wife was not entitled to maintenance.
The SC set aside the LHC order. The order asked as to when a Muslim woman becomes entitled to maintenance within a marriage, and under what circumstances, if any, a husband may be excused from his marital obligation to pay maintenance to his wife.
The judgment said courts in Pakistan have consistently interpreted these provisions in line with constitutional guarantees and Islamic legal principles, holding that a wife’s entitlement to maintenance accrues immediately upon the solemnization of a valid marriage.
The judgment noted that a wife’s right to maintenance becomes absolute when she demonstrates such willingness, which is reinforced by her waiting for rukhsati to be effected.
“To condition a wife’s entitlement to maintenance on rukhsati or consummation undermines legal certainty and enables husbands to evade their financial responsibilities by invoking social customs or delaying performance.
“Such an approach imposes an unconstitutional burden on women and reinforces patriarchal norms that make a woman’s financial rights contingent upon her physical availability or subservience. This is incompatible with the dignity and equality promised under the Constitution,” it said.
The court noted that a husband may only be excused from paying maintenance where he proves, through clear, cogent, and compelling evidence, that the wife has wholly and unjustifiably withdrawn from the marital relationshipincluding its emotional, residential, and relational aspects.
“The burden of proof lies squarely on the husband. This exception in favour of the husband must be narrowly construed to avoid supporting structural gender inequalities, which demand a cautious and rights-oriented approach to interpreting such exceptions, ensuring that maintenance remains a shield against economic vulnerability, not a tool of coercion,” it said.
The court also expressed concern over the language used in the LHC decision.
The judgment noted that the language employed by courts in family law cases does more than resolve individual disputes; it actively shapes public understanding of rights and obligations within marriage and the broader family structure. Judicial language carries normative force.
“It influences how justice is perceived, internalized, and practiced. Terms such as ‘surrender’ or ‘submit’ are rooted in patriarchal frameworks and reinforce outdated notions of gender hierarchy and female subordination. These expressions cast women as passive recipients in marriage rather than equal partners, undermining their legal and constitutional status.
“It is therefore imperative that judicial reasoning and expression be firmly anchored in the constitutional values of dignity, equality, and non-discrimination, while also reflecting the lived realities of litigants and the prevailing social context.”
Justice Shah noted that judges, particularly in family law matters, are not merely arbiters of individual disputes; they are reformers and thought leaders capable of guiding society toward progressive and inclusive thinking.
“They bear a constitutional and ethical duty to adopt gender-sensitive, rights-based language that affirms the equal legal status of women as full and autonomous persons. Judicial decisions must avoid stereotypes, promote tolerance, and embody the principles of substantive justice.
“In fulfilling this transformative role under the Constitution, the judiciary does more than interpret law; it reshapes societal attitudes and advances equality through every word it speaks. Language is never neutral. It either reinforces the status quo or propels society toward a just and equal future,” it said.