CASE TITLE AMBREEN AKRAM vs ASAD ULLAH KHAN Relevant sections — 2026 SCMR 1 SUPREME-COURT

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

CASE TITLE AMBREEN AKRAM VS ASAD ULLAH KHAN Relevant sections... Ss.5, Sched. & 17-a---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss.5 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan, arts.14, 25, 35 & 185(3)---Wife's entitlement to maintenance in a non-consummated marriage---Scope Full case summary... Maintenance allowance to wife, denial of---Marriage not being consummated, ground of---Legality---Wife's right to maintenance flows unconditionally from solemnization of a valid marriage---Obligation of husband to pay maintenance---Exception stated---Husband to prove that wife repudiated the marital relationship---Brief facts were that the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband contracted marriage on 02.11.2012 through a valid nikahnama, with rukhsati mutually scheduled for February 2013, however, the respondent/husband delayed rukhsati for more than a year---Petitioner/wife filed a suit for maintenance before the family court, whereby, Rs.3,000 per month was decreed in her favour from the date of marriage---On appeal, the district court enhanced the amount to Rs.5,000 per month---During the proceedings, the respondent/husband divorced the petitioner/wife on 02.05.2014---High Court, however, set aside the decrees of the lower courts, holding that since the marriage had not been consummated, the petitioner/wife was not entitled to maintenance---The petitioner/wife thereafter approached the Supreme Court seeking restoration of her right to maintenance---Pivotal questions for determination before the Supreme Court were as to (i)"When does a Muslim woman become entitled to maintenance within a marriage"? and, (ii)"under what circumstances, if any, may a husband be excused from his marital obligation to pay maintenance to his wife"?---Held: Islamic principles, Constitutional and statutory protections, and judicial precedents affirmed that the wife's right to maintenance flew unconditionally from the solemnization of a valid marriage and constituted a binding legal duty---a husband could only be excused from paying maintenance where he could prove through clear, cogent, and compelling evidence that the wife had wholly and unjustifiably withdrawn from the marital relationship including its emotional, residential, and relational aspects---The burden of proof lay squarely on the husband---This exception in favour of the husband was to be narrowly construed to support structural gender inequalities which demanded a cautious and rights-oriented approach to interpreting such exceptions, ensuring that maintenance remained a shield against economic vulnerability, not a tool of coercion---In the present case, there was no dispute that the parties entered into a valid marriage, nor was there any allegation, much less evidence, that the petitioner/wife refused consummation or cohabitation without reasonable cause---On the contrary, the record revealed that the respondent/husband failed to provide a marital abode, made no arrangements for rukhsati, and did not take steps to fulfill his basic obligations under the marital contract---There was similarly no factual or legal basis in the record to invoke the narrow exception to the respondent's/husband's obligation of maintenance---No credible evidence had been led to suggest that the petitioner/wife willfully withdrew from the marital relationship or refused cohabitation without valid cause---The wife's inability to cohabit due to the husband's own failure to facilitate rukhsati did not defeat her claim to maintenance---Petitioner/wife could not be penalized for non-consummation that resulted from the respondent's/husband's own inaction---Petitioner's/wife's right to maintenance accrued upon the solemnization of marriage and continued throughout the subsistence of the marital bond---Considering that the divorce took place during the pendency of the said litigation, the maintenance period was to continue till the period of iddat---The denial of maintenance in the present case, in light of the respondent's/husband's default and the absence of any fault on part of the petitioner/wife, was contrary to law and was accordingly set aside---Impugned judgment was set aside---The petitioner's/ wife's entitlement to maintenance from the date of valid marriage was affirmed in the sum for Rs. 5000/- per month adjudicated upon by the district court and also included maintenance for the period of iddat---The petition was accepted, converted into an appeal, and allowed.

CASE TITLE AMBREEN AKRAM vs ASAD ULLAH KHAN Relevant sections — 2026 SCMR 1 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR