Khula Procedure in Pakistan: Supreme Court Protects Wife’s Consent, Dower, and Dignity

A woman may walk into a Family Court with a broken marriage, but that does not mean she has surrendered all her rights. She may be tired of cruelty. She may be unpaid, unheard, and emotionally exhausted. She may even be facing the pain of her husband’s second marriage. But still, the law cannot presume that she has chosen khula and agreed to give up her dower.

This Supreme Court judgment is a powerful reminder that khula procedure in Pakistan is not a mechanical formality. It is not a shortcut for courts. It is not a label that can be placed on every case filed by a wife. Khula requires the wife’s voluntary consent, and that consent must be real, informed and recorded.

In Dr. Seema Hanif Khan vs Waqas Khan and others, reported as PLD 2026 Supreme Court 91, the Supreme Court of Pakistan protected a woman’s consent, dower, maintenance and dignity. The Court held that a Family Court cannot convert a wife’s suit for dissolution of marriage into khula without her consent. The Court also held that the husband’s second marriage, contracted without legal permission, was enough to dissolve the marriage.

IRAC Judgment Summary
IRAC	Short Points
Issue	Whether Family Court could grant khula when the wife had filed a suit for dissolution on cruelty, maintenance and second marriage grounds.
Rule	Khula and dissolution of marriage are separate remedies. Khula requires the wife’s voluntary consent, while dissolution depends on statutory grounds under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.
Analysis	The Family Court ignored the wife’s pleaded grounds, treated the case as khula, and deprived her of dower and full maintenance.
Conclusion	Supreme Court set aside the khula finding, dissolved the marriage on illegal second marriage ground, and protected the wife’s dower and maintenance.
Citation & Title	2026PLD91	Dr. Seema Hanif Khan vs Waqas Khan and others

Background of the Case

The facts of this case make the khula procedure in Pakistan very clear for ordinary readers. Dr. Seema Hanif Khan married Waqas Khan on 31 May 2015. According to the nikahnama, her dower included a plot in Federal Employees Society Jinnah Garden Phase-I, Islamabad, 30 tola gold ornaments, and Rs. 500,000. The nikahnama also fixed Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance.

Rukhsati took place on 9 April 2016. On 4 July 2017, the wife filed a suit for dissolution of marriage. Her case was based on three main grounds: cruelty, non-payment of maintenance and the husband’s additional marriage.

The Family Court, however, granted khula on 22 July 2019. It directed the wife to return the gold and plot in lieu of khula. The Court treated Rs. 500,000 as unpaid and considered it surrendered dower. The wife’s appeal was dismissed on 12 October 2020, and the Peshawar High Court dismissed her petition on 27 May 2024.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the main question was whether a wife’s dissolution suit could be converted into khula without her consent.

Arguments of Both Parties’ Lawyers

Petitioner Wife’s Lawyer Arguments

The wife’s lawyer argued that the wife had not asked for khula. She had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on specific legal grounds, including cruelty, non-payment of maintenance and the husband’s second marriage.

The lawyer argued that the Family Court and Appellate Court ignored the wife’s prayer, her evidence and her legal rights. Instead of deciding the statutory grounds, the Family Court wrongly granted khula without her consent. This deprived her of valuable dower, including the plot, 30 tola gold and Rs. 500,000.

The wife’s lawyer also argued that the lower courts stigmatized her reputation and dignity without legal justification. Labelling her as disobedient, career-oriented or unwilling to live with the husband was not enough to deny her legal rights. Her desire for education or career could not be treated as misconduct.

In simple words, the petitioner’s side said: this was not a khula case; it was a dissolution case, and the wife should not lose her dower and maintenance because of a wrong legal label.

Respondent Husband’s Lawyer Arguments

The husband’s lawyer argued that the wife’s case was effectively one for khula because she repeatedly stated that she did not want to live with the husband. According to the husband’s side, the Family Court was correct in granting khula.

The respondent’s lawyer also argued that cruelty was not proved. He said there was no sufficient documentary evidence, no medical proof and no proper record to establish cruelty. The husband’s side tried to show that the wife left the matrimonial home of her own choice and pursued her career, which, according to them, showed disobedience and unwillingness to perform marital obligations.

The husband’s lawyer further argued that the husband had tried to save the marriage and had been generous with the wife. His position was that the wife was more interested in her career and did not honour the marital bond.

But the Supreme Court did not accept this reasoning. The Court held that a wife’s refusal to continue marriage does not automatically mean khula. Her career, education or autonomy cannot be used as a ground to defeat her legal rights.

Legal Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified two core legal issues:

1. Whether the Family Court could, on its own, grant khula without explicitly seeking the wife’s consent when the wife had filed a suit for dissolution under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.

2. What standard of proof applies when a wife seeks dissolution on grounds such as cruelty, taking an additional wife, and non-payment of maintenance?

The Court also examined the way the Family Court appreciated evidence and the language used against the wife in the judgment.

Issue 1: Can Family Court Grant Khula Without Wife’s Consent?

Court’s Answer: No.

This is the central ruling of the judgment. The Supreme Court held that khula is a distinct cause of action based on the wife’s consent and autonomy. It cannot be judicially imposed to replace statutory dissolution.

This is the heart of khula procedure in Pakistan. A wife must voluntarily choose khula. The court must record her consent and must ensure that she understands the legal consequences. If khula may affect dower or maintenance, the wife must know what she is giving up.

The Court said that filing a suit for dissolution of marriage does not itself amount to seeking khula. A wife may seek dissolution because of cruelty, non-maintenance or unlawful second marriage. If those grounds are raised, the court must decide them. It cannot bypass them by granting khula.

This ruling protects women from being forced into a financial disadvantage merely because they approached the Family Court.

Issue 2: Is Khula Different from Dissolution of Marriage?

Court’s Answer: Yes.

The Supreme Court explained that dissolution under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 is a statutory remedy. A Muslim woman can seek dissolution if she proves one or more grounds mentioned in the law. These include cruelty, failure to provide maintenance and taking an additional wife in violation of law.

Khula is different. It is an alternate mode of ending marriage and is based on the wife’s voluntary decision. That is why khula procedure in Pakistan cannot be mixed with dissolution of marriage. The legal consequences of both remedies may be different.

In this case, the wife had pleaded statutory grounds. The Family Court should have decided those grounds instead of treating the matter as khula.

For readers who want to understand the legal background, the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 provides statutory grounds for dissolution of marriage, while the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 explains the legal process regarding second marriage permission. These laws help explain why khula procedure in Pakistan must not be confused with statutory dissolution of marriage.

Issue 3: Was Cruelty Properly Assessed by the Lower Courts?

Court’s Answer: No.

The Supreme Court held that the Family Court and Appellate Court failed to apply the correct standard of proof. They ignored the wife’s evidence and wrongly insisted on documentary proof of cruelty.

The wife had produced witnesses, including herself, her cousin, uncle and mother. Her evidence described physical, mental and emotional mistreatment. She alleged that while living with her in-laws, the husband returned home late at night, male servants moved freely in her residential area, and she felt fear and distress. She also alleged verbal and emotional abuse, humiliation and lack of maintenance.

The lower courts rejected much of this evidence because there was no medical report or First Information Report for every allegation. The Supreme Court corrected this approach. It held that family cases are civil disputes, and cruelty must be assessed on the balance of probabilities.

This part of the judgment is very important for khula procedure in Pakistan because many family cases involve hidden harm. Domestic abuse often happens privately. A woman may not always have medical documents, police reports or direct witnesses. The court must look at the complete story and surrounding circumstances.

Issue 4: Is Cruelty Only Physical Violence?

Court’s Answer: No.

The Supreme Court explained that cruelty is not limited to physical violence. It can be physical, mental, emotional or environmental. It may include humiliation, verbal abuse, emotional neglect, hostile family environment, oppressive behaviour by in-laws tolerated by the husband, or conduct that makes marital life unsafe or intolerable.

The decisive factor is the impact of the husband’s conduct on the wife. If the conduct makes it impossible for her to live with dignity, peace and security, the court can treat it as cruelty.

This is a humane and realistic interpretation of family law. It recognizes that a woman’s suffering is not always visible on her body. Sometimes it is carried in fear, anxiety, humiliation and loss of dignity.

Issue 5: What Is the Correct Standard of Proof in Family Cases?

Court’s Answer: Balance of probabilities.

The Court held that disputes under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 are civil in nature. Therefore, the standard is not “beyond reasonable doubt.” The correct standard is balance of probabilities.

This means the Family Court must decide which version is more probable after considering the entire evidence. The court must examine the wife’s testimony, the surrounding circumstances and the impact of the husband’s conduct on her ability to continue married life.

The Supreme Court held that the law does not require a woman to produce police reports, medical certificates or written complaints for every slap, insult or emotional trauma. This finding makes the khula procedure in Pakistan and dissolution litigation more sensitive to the realities of domestic life.

Issue 6: Was the Husband’s Second Marriage a Ground for Dissolution?

Court’s Answer: Yes.

The husband had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. The wife alleged that this was done without her consent and without permission from the Arbitration Council.

The Supreme Court examined Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. A husband who wants to contract another marriage must seek the consent of his existing wife. If consent is refused, he must apply to the Chairman of the Union Council, and the Arbitration Council must decide whether the proposed marriage is necessary and just.

In this case, the husband admitted the second marriage in his written statement and evidence. He did not prove that he had obtained permission from the wife or the Arbitration Council. The Court also noted that he had been convicted in proceedings under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance.

The Supreme Court held that the second marriage was in clear violation of law and attracted clause (ii-a) of Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. This ground alone was sufficient to dissolve the marriage.

This finding is one of the strongest parts of the judgment. It shows that khula procedure in Pakistan cannot be used to ignore the husband’s unlawful second marriage.

Issue 7: Can a Husband Blame the Wife for His Second Marriage?

Court’s Answer: No.

The lower courts had accepted reasoning that blamed the wife as disobedient or self-deserting. The Family Court even appeared to justify the husband’s second marriage by suggesting that the wife’s conduct compelled him.

The Supreme Court strongly rejected this approach. It held that no one can be compelled to contract a second marriage. A husband cannot justify an unlawful second marriage by blaming the wife.

This is a major dignity-based finding. It stops the legal system from shifting blame onto women for a man’s unlawful conduct.

Issue 8: Can Wife’s Career or Education Be Treated as Disobedience?

Court’s Answer: No.

The Supreme Court criticized the lower courts for treating the wife’s education, career or desire to go abroad as disobedience. The Court held that a woman’s desire to pursue education or career is not misconduct. It is part of her personal autonomy.

This is a very progressive and important part of the judgment. It protects women from being punished in family cases for being educated, career-oriented or independent.

In the context of khula procedure in Pakistan, this matters because courts must not use moral labels to deprive women of dower, maintenance or statutory relief.

Issue 9: Can Maintenance Be Denied by Calling Wife Disobedient?

Court’s Answer: No.

The wife’s nikahnama fixed maintenance at Rs. 10,000 per month. The wife and her mother gave evidence that maintenance was not paid. The husband did not prove payment through evidence.

The lower courts, however, focused on alleged disobedience. The Supreme Court rejected this approach. It held that maintenance is a legal obligation during the subsistence of marriage. It cannot be denied merely by calling the wife disobedient or self-deserting.

This part of the judgment is highly practical. Many women lose maintenance claims because courts focus on moral assumptions instead of evidence. The Supreme Court reminded Family Courts that findings must be based on facts and law.

Issue 10: Was the Wife Required to Return Her Dower?

Court’s Answer: No.

The wife’s dower included the plot, gold and money. The lower courts treated the case as khula and therefore ordered her to return or surrender financial benefits.

The Supreme Court held this was wrong. Since the wife had not sought khula and the marriage was dissolved on the husband’s unlawful second marriage, she was not required to return her dower.

The wife was allowed to keep the plot, 30 tola gold and Rs. 500,000. She was also held entitled to maintenance. This is a key lesson in khula procedure in Pakistan: wrongfully calling a dissolution case “khula” can unfairly deprive a wife of valuable financial rights.

Issue 11: Should Courts Avoid Words Like “Disobedient Wife”?

Court’s Answer: Yes.

The Supreme Court gave special attention to the language used by the Family Court. It criticized words and phrases such as “disobedient wife,” “self-deserting lady,” and the idea that the wife compelled the husband to contract a second marriage.

The Court held that such words are not neutral legal findings. They are social judgments disguised as legal reasoning. They shift attention away from the husband’s conduct and place unfair moral blame on the woman.

The Court emphasized that judicial language must respect dignity, equality and non-discrimination. This is an important constitutional message for all Family Courts.

Evidence Considered by the Supreme Court
Evidence / Fact	Court’s View
Wife’s dissolution suit	It was based on statutory grounds, not khula
Wife’s witnesses	Their evidence should have been assessed on balance of probabilities
Lack of medical reports	Not fatal in every cruelty case
Husband’s second marriage	Admitted and legally significant
No permission from wife or Arbitration Council	Violation of Section 6 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance
Maintenance clause in nikahnama	Rs. 10,000 per month was a binding obligation
Dower in nikahnama	Plot, gold and money could not be taken away through wrongly imposed khula
Language used by lower courts	Patriarchal and legally improper

Final Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it. The judgments and decrees of the Family Court and Appellate Court, and the order of the Peshawar High Court, were set aside to the extent of khula, dower and maintenance.

The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage on the ground that the husband had contracted a second marriage in violation of law. The wife was not required to return her dower. She was allowed to keep the gold, money and plot. She was also held entitled to maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month for the period during which the marriage subsisted, to be calculated and paid according to law.

This final decision makes the judgment a landmark explanation of khula procedure in Pakistan, especially where Family Courts wrongly treat a wife’s statutory dissolution case as khula.

Important Legal Principles from This Judgment  

Dower Cannot Be Taken Away by Wrong Label	If the case is dissolution, the wife should not lose dower merely because the court wrongly calls it khula.
Khula Cannot Be Imposed	Khula depends on the wife’s consent. A court cannot impose khula by assumption.
Dissolution Suit Is Not Automatically Khula	A wife may seek dissolution on statutory grounds. That does not mean she has agreed to khula.
Wife’s Consent Must Be Recorded	In khula procedure in Pakistan, the wife’s consent must be clear and informed, especially where dower rights may be affected.
Illegal Second Marriage Can Dissolve Marriage	Second marriage without legal permission can be a ground for dissolution under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.
Cruelty Is Not Limited to Physical Violence	Cruelty can be mental, emotional, physical or environmental.
Family Cases Are Decided on Balance of Probabilities	A woman does not need to prove cruelty like a criminal case.
Career Is Not Disobedience	A woman’s education or career cannot be treated as misconduct.
Maintenance Is a Legal Obligation	Maintenance cannot be denied through moral labels.
Court Language Must Protect Dignity	Family Courts must avoid patriarchal and stereotype-based language.

Why This Judgment Matters for Pakistani Women

This judgment matters because many people misunderstand khula procedure in Pakistan. In society, every wife-initiated separation is casually called khula. But in law, khula and dissolution are different.

If a wife says that her husband has been cruel, has failed to maintain her or has contracted another marriage unlawfully, the court must decide those grounds. It cannot avoid that duty by granting khula without consent.

This judgment also gives emotional recognition to women’s lived experiences. It recognizes that cruelty may happen behind closed doors. It may not always leave documents, photographs or medical reports. A court must look at the full picture.

Most importantly, the judgment protects women from losing dower and maintenance because of a wrong legal label. It tells Family Courts that justice is not served by calling a woman disobedient. Justice is served by applying the law fairly.

Practical Lessons for Family Court Cases

A wife filing a family case should clearly state whether she is seeking khula or dissolution on statutory grounds. If the case is based on cruelty, non-maintenance or second marriage, those facts should be pleaded clearly.

Lawyers should carefully protect dower and maintenance claims. They should not allow a statutory dissolution case to be casually converted into khula unless the wife genuinely and knowingly consents.

Family Courts should record consent before granting khula. They should also explain consequences to the wife. This is a necessary part of fair khula procedure in Pakistan.

Where second marriage is involved, the court should examine whether permission was obtained under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. If not, that fact may become a powerful ground for dissolution.

Conclusion

This Supreme Court judgment is a milestone in Pakistani family law. It explains that khula procedure in Pakistan must be based on the wife’s consent, not judicial assumption. A wife who files a dissolution suit on legal grounds should not be forced into khula and deprived of her dower.

The Court also clarified that cruelty must be understood in its real-life context. A woman’s pain is not always documented. Domestic abuse may happen privately. Courts must assess evidence on balance of probabilities and must consider the impact of conduct on the woman’s dignity and safety.

The judgment further holds that unlawful second marriage cannot be justified by blaming the wife. Career, education and personal autonomy are not disobedience. Maintenance is not a favour; it is a legal obligation. Dower is not something that can be taken away through a wrong label.

For ordinary readers, this case gives a clear message: the law protects a woman’s consent, dignity and financial rights. For lawyers, it gives a strong precedent. For Family Courts, it gives a firm warning that khula and dissolution must not be confused.

Important Note

This article is for legal awareness and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Family law cases depend on their own facts, evidence and documents. For any personal legal matter, please consult a qualified family lawyer.

FAQs About Khula Procedure in Pakistan