The city of Karak in KP is in a society known for defending tribal customs and traditions, even if they demand a tremendous cost. Even here, however, things are changing, and it is women who are the drivers of that change.
One of those women is Zahida Parveen, whose father worked at Government Government in Karak. She herself had an interest in education and wanted to be a school teacher. When his father died, Parveen requested to be appointed for his position at the Government of the Government of Government under the government’s quota reserved for the sons or daughters of the deceased government personnel, according to the Law of Functions of the Province. Parveen, who married when he presented the petition, received the appointment. However, shortly after, the district education officer in Karak withdrew the appointment, stating that a daughter is only eligible to be appointed under the fee if she is not married and shares her parents’ home, or if she is married but she is separated from her husband. The involvement was that if a woman is married, then she is the responsibility of her husband and cannot benefit from her father’s government post.
It was this interpretation that occurred before the Supreme Court in the case ‘Zahida Parveen vs. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’ government. In the center of the subject, a woman was considered to be considered a financial dependent on her husband as soon as she marries. In an extensive decision, the Supreme Court said that the interpretation of the statute adopted by the KP government was incorrect. Instead, the court ruled that a Pakistani woman is an independent financial entity even when she is married and has a husband. As a result, the court reasoned that Zahida Parveen was eligible to receive the benefits under the statute, regardless of her marital status or if her husband was providing her financially.
The decision is significant. First and more obvious, he recognizes women as financially independent entities. Secondly, it establishes a precedent that the eligibility of women for benefits does not depend on their marital status. Finally, he reiterates the basis of human rights to recognize women as complete and equal citizens without their marital status being consideration. This last point is important because in the past, the civil status of women, and the prerogative of the husband on their lives, progress has been made on its exercise of rights. Zahida Parveen can be a government school teacher in a remote area, but her refusal to allow the government to exclude it from the benefits based on their marital status has led to an advance of women throughout Pakistan.
Women who challenge patriarchal customs are reforming legal limits and claiming long -standing inheritance rights.
Zahida Parveen is not the only woman in the province who defended himself by refusing to renounce the rights under pressure of a patriarchal culture. Another is Syeda Fouzia Jalaal Shah, who presented a petition under article 203-D of the Constitution. In her presentation before the Federal Court of Shariat, Shah claimed that other women in the Bannu district were denied her right to inherit property due to a local tribal practice. Shah referred to a usual pressure known in the area as a Parking or Chaddar, under which women were forced to renounce their right to ancestral property. The petition also cited religious verses that establish the rights that Muslim women have to inherit property.
In its procedures, the FSC reviewed the responses of the four provinces with respect to such practices. While all provinces denied the existence of any custom by the specific names of Chaddar or Parking, they recognized that women were regularly deprived of their inheritance rights, often through emotional pressure or local custom. The Court ruled that any practice, regardless of its name, that deprives women of their legitimate inheritance is synlamic and illegal. However, he did not grant Shah any personal remedy for the supposed denial of the inheritance rights of his late mother, stating that such in personam’s relief is outside his jurisdiction in a Shariath request.
This distinction is crucial. While the court did not resolve Shah’s personal complaint, he established a general legal and moral precedent: the customs that press women to renounce property rights, either called Parking, Chaddar or any other name, have no legal or religious basis.
In a society where tradition and faith have long been entangled to limit women’s autonomy, this recognition is of critical importance. The ruling reinforces that women can challenge coercive practices such as haq bakhshwana in court using existing remedies. Among these is section 498-A of the Pakistan Criminal Code, which criminalizes depriving a woman of her inherited property and prescribes prison and fines for criminals.
The two decisions reflect crucial steps to recognize women’s financial autonomy, either in terms of being considered financially independent or in their ability to inherit property. The fact that they are two women whose posture contributed to this change and that refused to retreat in the face of male pressure show how women are becoming economically and legally literate, and are not afraid to raise their voices. It was particularly encouraging to see the members of the FSC Bank recognize the role of family pressure and emotional blackmail to deprive women of their rights.
We are living moments of great change, which can generate anxiety and fear about the future of society. Incurrers such as these are essential sources of hope because they reveal how even institutions or customs once consider themselves impenetrable and impregnable can be transformed for a more fair and equitable future. As the story of these two cases suggests, and women behind them, sometimes the change can be something good.
The writer is a lawyer who teaches constitutional law and political philosophy.
rafia.zakaria@gmail.com
Posted in Dawn, April 5, 2025
