Introduction

Dower (Haq Mehr) is not just a symbolic gesture in marriage contracts under Islamic law—it is a binding obligation. It may take the form of money, movable property, or even immovable land. But what happens when heirs of a deceased husband dispute the wife’s right to property given to her as dower?

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its recent judgment Muhammad Ajmal v. Noor Khatoon (2025 SCMR 851), settled this question with clarity. The Court reaffirmed that when land is given to a wife in lieu of dower, properly documented and supported by witnesses, her right is secure—even if challenged years later by the husband’s heirs.

This case is a striking reminder of the legal sanctity of dower and the crucial role of evidence in family disputes.

The Story Behind the Case

The dispute began in Khanpur, where Mst. Noor Khatoon, widow of Khan Muhammad, claimed that her late husband had transferred 12 acres of agricultural land to her as Haq Mehr (dower).

According to Noor Khatoon:

An agreement dated 26 March 2009 was executed by her husband, Khan Muhammad.

 The agreement was written by a scriber (Munir Ahmed), in the presence of marginal witnesses.

 At the same time, possession of the land was also handed over to her.

However, after Khan Muhammad’s death in 2008, his heirs—led by Muhammad Ajmal—disputed Noor Khatoon’s claim. They argued that the agreement was fake, back-dated, and designed to deprive them of their inheritance.

The matter went before the Family Judge, Khanpur, who after recording evidence, decreed the suit in Noor Khatoon’s favor. The decision was upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal, and later by the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench).

Unhappy with three concurrent rulings, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

The Petitioners’ Arguments

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners advanced three main arguments:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction – They claimed the Family Court had no power to decide such matters since it involved an agreement, which should fall under the jurisdiction of a civil court.

2. Forgery Allegation – They argued the 2009 agreement was fake and back-dated, and Noor Khatoon had not raised this claim during her husband’s lifetime.

3. Lack of Transfer of Title – They emphasized that no formal transfer or mutation had been made in Noor Khatoon’s name during Khan Muhammad’s lifetime.

In short, their position was that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on misreading of evidence and should be overturned.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, delivering the judgment, carefully reviewed the evidence and rejected the petitioners’ arguments.

1. Jurisdiction of the Family Court

Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 explicitly gives jurisdiction to Family Courts in matters relating to:

 Dower

 Maintenance

 Dissolution of marriage

 Custody, dowry, personal property of wife, etc.

Since the case involved recovery of dower in the form of land, the Family Court clearly had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had already dealt with this issue “in an elaborate and eloquent manner,” leaving no room for doubt.

2. Proof of the Agreement

The Court relied on the testimony of three crucial witnesses:

Munir Ahmed (PW-1), the scriber, confirmed that he wrote the agreement at Khan Muhammad’s instructions.

Riaz Ahmed (PW-3) and Zahid Hussain (PW-4), the marginal witnesses, confirmed they were present when Khan Muhammad signed the agreement and handed possession of the land to Noor Khatoon.

The petitioners, on the other hand, failed to:

 Produce any evidence to prove forgery.

 File an application for handwriting expert analysis.

 Pursue their own application to call the stamp vendor, which they later withdrew.

Thus, the agreement stood fully proved through credible oral and documentary evidence.

3. Concurrent Findings of Fact

The Supreme Court emphasized that when three courts below (trial court, appellate court, and High Court) have all recorded the same findings based on proper evidence, the Supreme Court would not interfere unless there is a glaring legal or jurisdictional error.

Here, the findings were consistent and well-reasoned.

The Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. The key holding was:

Land given as dower is valid and enforceable when supported by evidence.

Family Courts have jurisdiction to entertain such claims under Section 5 of the Family Courts Act.

 Allegations of forgery must be proved with evidence; mere assertions are insufficient.

Noor Khatoon’s right to the 12 acres of land, given to her as Haq Mehr, was thus upheld at the highest level.

Key Legal Takeaways

This case offers several important lessons for litigants and lawyers alike:

1. Dower Can Be Land

Dower is not limited to cash. It can include movable or immovable property, provided it is properly agreed upon and evidenced.

2. Family Courts Have Jurisdiction

Any dispute relating to dower, whether in cash or land, falls within the jurisdiction of Family Courts, not civil courts.

3. Concurrent Findings Are Hard to Overturn

If three courts have recorded consistent factual findings, the Supreme Court will rarely disturb them unless there is clear illegality.

4. Burden of Proof Matters

The party alleging forgery or fraud must prove it. In this case, the petitioners produced no witness or expert report to support their claim.

5. Documentation and Witnesses Are Key

The presence of a written agreement, scriber, and marginal witnesses provided Noor Khatoon with an unshakable evidentiary foundation.

Broader Implications

This ruling reinforces the security of women’s rights in marriage contracts. By upholding Noor Khatoon’s claim, the Supreme Court:

 Strengthened the enforceability of dower agreements.

 Reaffirmed that women can claim immovable property as Haq Mehr.

 Sent a message that vague allegations cannot defeat properly documented rights.

It also reminds legal heirs that dower rights take precedence over inheritance claims if the property was lawfully transferred during the husband’s lifetime.

Conclusion

The judgment in Muhammad Ajmal v. Noor Khatoon (2025 SCMR 851) is a milestone in family law. It upholds the principle that dower is a serious and enforceable obligation, not a mere formality. When land is given as dower, supported by witnesses and proper documentation, it creates binding ownership rights for the wife.

For families, it highlights the importance of clarity and documentation in matrimonial transactions. For lawyers, it demonstrates the value of strong evidence and the futility of vague defenses. And for society, it reaffirms that women’s marital rights are legally protected at the highest judicial level.

Because when it comes to justice—documents speak louder than doubts.