The Lahore High Court has ruled that a husband is not entitled to reclaim gold ornaments listed as dower in a Nikahnama as consideration for Khula sought by his wife.
Justice Raheel Kamran issued the judgment while disposing of four connected petitions arising from a matrimonial dispute between Dr Rukhsana Kausar and Shahid Nazeer.
Both sides had challenged findings of a Muzaffargarh sessions court on gold ornaments and other issues, including maintenance, dowry and ownership of the couple’s house.
The marriage was dissolved through Khula in 2012. The family court had initially held that the wife was required to return the dower received as Badl-i-Khula, while other matters such as maintenance, dowry articles, gold ornaments and delivery expenses remained pending.
In 2018, the family court partly decreed the suit, awarded maintenance and ordered recovery of dowry articles. It also directed the wife to return 11 tolas of gold, or its value, to the husband.
The appellate court upheld these findings in 2020, reducing only the annual increase in the minor child’s maintenance from 15 percent to 10 percent.
On maintenance, Justice Kamran upheld the concurrent findings and noted that the husband had withheld his complete salary record and produced only a certificate showing his basic pay. The courts were therefore justified in drawing an adverse inference about his actual earning capacity.
The judge also noted testimony from the husband’s brother that he owned a Honda Civic, which further weakened his claim of limited means. He said the court would not allow a financially capable parent to understate his resources to reduce responsibility toward his child.
On the matrimonial house, the judge upheld the finding that the wife’s father, who was working abroad at the time, had financed the entire purchase through a documented chain of banking transactions.
Bank officials corroborated the transactions, and their testimony remained largely unchallenged during cross-examination.
Since the husband had never actually paid for the house despite its inclusion in the dower, the judge held that it could not be reclaimed as Badl-i-Khula. He also upheld the wife’s later transfer of the house to her father and the decree granting him possession.
On the claim for 11 tolas of gold, Justice Kamran said the lower courts erred by treating the lack of documentary evidence as decisive while ignoring supporting circumstances.
Given the husband’s established financial incapacity, the judge held it was more likely that the gold had also been financed by the wife’s father.
He ruled that the respondent could not claim return of the ornaments as Badl-i-Khula because they were not dower paid for from his own resources.
Regarding 22 tolas of dowry gold, the judge upheld the findings against the wife, noting that she never claimed the jewelry had been forcibly taken from her.
Her inconsistent statements about when she left the matrimonial home, along with her refusal to produce a video of her sister’s wedding showing her wearing jewelry after leaving her husband’s home, also supported an adverse inference.
Justice Kamran also upheld the dismissal of the wife’s Rs63,000 claim for maternity and delivery expenses.
The post Husband Can’t Take Back Gold Given to Wife Despite Separation: LHC appeared first on ProPakistani.