Islamabad: In a historical sentence with high -range implications for women’s rights under Islamic family laws, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the right of a woman to maintenance (NAFAQA) did not depend on consummation or ‘Rukhsati’ (nuptial departure) nor is it the discretion of her husband.
“It flows unconditionally of the solemnization of a valid marriage and constitutes a binding legal duty,” Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah observed in his decision on an appeal of Ambreen Akram. She had challenged the verdict of the Superior Court of Lahore (LHC) of April 28, 2015, which rejected her maintenance declaration because the marriage was not consummated.
“In essence, the only legitimate terrain to suspend this obligation (maintenance) arises when the husband discharges a high trial load to establish that his wife has completely and without retracted justification of the marriage relationship, not only as physical access, but encompasses the complete spectrum of emotional, residential and relational life,” Justice Shah explained in his trial of 15 pages.
Judge Shah says that the maintenance claim enters into force with the solemnization of marriage; criticizes LHC’s observations as ‘deeply patriarchal’
“In the absence of such evidence, the obligation to provide maintenance persists,” said Judge Shah.
Two fundamental questions
The sentence observed that the case raises two fundamental questions at the intersection of Islamic law, constitutional rights and social realities: when does a Muslim woman have the right to maintenance within a marriage?
And, in what circumstances can a man be excused from his marriage obligation to pay maintenance to his wife?
At stake it is not simply the contemporary interpretation of Islamic law, but the very meaning of marriage (Nikah) and the marriage relationship, the scope of the financial independence of a woman within the marriage and the promise of the Constitution to defend the dignity, privacy and equality of an individual, the protection of the family and the participation of women in all the backs of life, the trial was explained.
The case refers to Ambreen Akram’s marriage with Asadullah Khan in November 2012. Despite a valid Nikahnama, Asadullah delayed Rukhsati for more than a year.
Then Ambreen Akram requested maintenance in October 2013.
Confirmed claim
A Family Court in Faisalabad confirmed its claim, granting an amount of RS3000 per month as maintenance with effect from the date of marriage. The amount was then collected by the Faisalabad District Court to RS5000.
Asadullah Khan divorced his wife on May 2, 2014. But the LHC reversed the decision, citing the lack of consummation.
The Supreme Court observed its sentence that Asadullah Khan had not provided a marriage abode, did not make arrangements for Rukhsati and did not comply with its basic obligations under the marriage contract.
There is no factual or legal basis to invoke an exception to the obligation to maintain the husband, Judge Shah observed.
“No credible evidence has led to suggesting that the petitioner deliberately withdrew from the marriage relationship or rejected coexistence without a valid cause,” said the judge of the Apex court.
The wife’s inability to live due to the husband’s own inability to facilitate Rukhsati does not defeat his maintenance claim, the trial explained.
Therefore, Ambreen Akram cannot be penalized due to the lack of consumption, since it resulted from her husband’s own inaction, Judge Shah said.
“Suggesting otherwise would allow men to arm the absence of consummation, often caused by their own negligence, as a means to escape financial responsibility, thus caughting women in marriages without rights and dignity,” the sentence warned.
The Supreme Court argued that the right of the petitioner to maintenance entered into force with the solemnization of marriage and continued while the link lasts.
Taking into account that divorce took place during the pendency of litigation, the maintenance period will continue until the Iddat period, the sentence added.
“The denial of maintenance in the light of non -compliance with the husband and in the absence of any failure in part of the wife, was contrary to the law and, consequently, was set aside,” Judge Shah observed.
In his opinion, Judge Shah continued to say that a reading of Islamic jurisprudence, legal promulgations, constitutional protections and judicial precedents affirm that the right of a woman to maintenance did not depend on the consummation or Rukhsati, nor subject to the discretion of her husband.
This understanding not only gives effect to the equal spirit of the Islamic Law, but also reinforces the constitutional commitment to dignity (article 14), equality (article 25) and protection of the family unit (article 35).
“In a patriarchal society where economic dependence often feeds systemic injustice, the right to maintenance must be protected as a constitutional, legal and ethical essential right.
“Any attempt to reduce it, therefore, must be subject to the most strict constitutional and jurisprudential scrutiny, emphasized the trial.
The Supreme Court set aside LHC’s judgment by sustaining Ambreen Akram’s right to the maintenance of RS5000 per month began on the date on which the marriage was solemnized. It will include maintenance for the IDDAT period.
Concern for the verdict of LHC in his final comments, Judge Mansoor Ali Shah pointed out the language used in the LHC trial.
The verdict of the Superior Court declared: “The maintenance allocation is the wife of the wife after the consummation of marriage and after crossing the barrier, she becomes the husband’s responsibility to keep his wife.”
Judge Shah criticized observations as “deeply patriarchal.”
These expressions emit women as passive receptors in marriage instead of equal couples, undermining their legal and constitutional status, said the judge.
Posted in Dawn, September 12, 2025
