Syed SIBT HASSAN vs SABA BATOOL S — 2025 PLD 359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Syed SIBT HASSAN VS SABA BATOOL S. 5, Sched.---Contract Act (X of 1872 ), S. 26---Suit for recovery of dower---Agreement between the spouses qua dower to be paid in case of divorce given by husband---Validity/enforceability of---Scope---Dower amount a stringent condition to be imposed to keep the parties in marital tie---Enhancement of dower amount after marriage---Permissibility/executability of---Agreement qua dower between the parties, had been held valid and enforceable by the (Appellate/ District) Court, declaring plaintiff/lady entitled for dower amount of Rs.4,000,000/- as specified in said agreement---Petitioner (ex-husband/ defendant) assailed the decree against him---Held, that though a stringent condition cannot be imposed to keep the parties in marriage bond, however, in the present case, perusal of the (exhibited) agreement-in-question showed that the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.4,000,000/- as dower in case of divorce---Said stipulation in the agreement (in-question) was not stringent condition imposed to keep the parties in marriage bond rather it was enhancement of the dower amount by the husband, which is not only permissible but also executable---Under Para. 287 of the "Principles of Mahomedan Law" by DF Mulla, the dower may be fixed either before or at the time of marriage or after marriage and can also be increased after marriage---Dower once settled can always be increased by the husband or by an agreement between the parties---It is well-settled that under Hanfi Law a husband is entitled to fix any amount of dower either at the time of marriage or even subsequently and also provide for mode of its payment---Section 26 of the Contract Act, 1872, does not cover documents creating partial or indirect restraints on marriage, in the sense that it does not restrict marriage though it may adversely make one liable to do something or pay some amount, in lieu of marriage---Thus, an agreement to pay a woman a specified amount, in case of divorce or remarriage, is not in restraint of marriage and cannot be considered, as void, being violative of the provisions of S. 26 of the Contract Act, 1872---No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the District Court for interference---Constitutional petition, filed by defendant (ex-husband), was dismissed, in circumstances.

Syed SIBT HASSAN vs SABA BATOOL S — 2025 PLD 359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD