ظلم ثابت نہ ہو تو بھی خلع دیا جا سکتا ہے، مگر بیوی کی رضامندی ضروری ہے
لاہور ہائی کورٹ، راولپنڈی بینچ نے 2026 CLC 1312 میں خلع سے متعلق ایک اہم فیصلہ سنایا۔
🔹 مقدمہ کس بارے میں تھا؟
بیوی اور بیٹی نے شوہر/والد کے خلاف نکاح ختم کرنے، نان نفقہ، سونے کے زیورات، جہیز کے سامان اور ڈیلیوری و میڈیکل اخراجات کی وصولی کا دعویٰ دائر کیا۔ بیوی نے نکاح ختم کرنے کے لیے شوہر پر ظلم و زیادتی کا الزام عائد کیا۔
🔹 ظلم ثابت نہ ہو سکا
عدالت کے سامنے بیوی ظلم کو مطلوبہ معیار کے مطابق ثابت نہ کر سکی۔ تاہم اس نے بیان کیا کہ اس کے دل میں شوہر کے لیے شدید نفرت پیدا ہو چکی ہے اور وہ اس کے ساتھ بطور بیوی مزید زندگی نہیں گزار سکتی۔
🔹 عدالت نے خلع کیوں دیا؟
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر ظلم ثابت نہ بھی ہو، لیکن حالات سے واضح ہو کہ میاں بیوی کے تعلقات مکمل طور پر خراب ہو چکے ہیں، صلح کی کوششیں ناکام ہو چکی ہیں اور بیوی کو شوہر سے شدید نفرت یا بیزاری ہے، تو ایسی صورت میں خلع کے ذریعے نکاح ختم کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
🔹 حق مہر کا اہم پہلو
چونکہ نکاح خلع کی بنیاد پر ختم کیا گیا، فیملی کورٹ نے بیوی کو پورا حق مہر سرنڈر کرنے کی شرط عائد کی، جسے ہائی کورٹ نے برقرار رکھا۔
🔹 عدالت کی اہم وضاحت
ہائی کورٹ نے ساتھ ہی واضح کیا کہ عدالت اپنی طرف سے کسی عورت کے دعوائے تنسیخِ نکاح کو خلع میں تبدیل نہیں کر سکتی۔ اگر خلع واضح طور پر نہیں مانگا گیا تو بیوی کی واضح، باخبر اور رضاکارانہ رضامندی ضروری ہے۔
🔹 حتمی نتیجہ
ٹرائل کورٹ نے نکاح خلع کی بنیاد پر ختم کیا، اپیل میں فیصلہ برقرار رہا اور لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے بھی مداخلت سے انکار کرتے ہوئے رِٹ پٹیشن خارج کر دی۔
اصل اصول یہ ہے کہ ظلم ثابت نہ ہونے کے باوجود ناقابلِ اصلاح ازدواجی تعلق اور شدید نفرت کی صورت میں خلع ممکن ہے، لیکن بیوی کی رضامندی کے بغیر عدالت خود سے خلع نہیں دے سکتی۔
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 1312
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Jawad Hassan, J
Mst. AYESHA HANIF and another-Petitioners
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and 2 others ---Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3731 of 2023, decided on 13th January, 2026.
(a) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)---
S. 2(ii)(ix)-Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), Ss. 7, 8, 9 & 11 (as amended through the Family Courts (Amendment) Act (XI of 2015))---Claim for dissolution of marriage---Khula---Cruelty alleged---Matrimonial relationship found beyond reconciliation---Cruelty not proved---Petitioners (wife and daughter) instituted a suit before the Family Court for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under 5.2(ii)(ix) along with claims for maintenance, gold ornaments, dowry articles, and delivery/medical expenses against the husband/father--Trial Court partly decreed the suit and the Appellate Court also partly allowed the appeal, whereafter the petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge both judgments and decrees-The core issue for determination was whether the court could grant khula when the woman sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty but failed to prove such cruelty---Held: Petitioner/wife had not succeeded in proving cruelty to the required standard of proof because she averred in the plaint that she had developed severe hatred in her heart and mind and could not live with the respondent/husband as his wedded wife and prayed for dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty-Relations between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that there was no realistic possibility of their resuming a harmonious marital life---Petitioner/wife demonstrated fixed aversion toward the respondent/husband--This was an appropriate case for the grant of khula, provided the petitioner/wife impliedly consented to seek such relief--Impugned judgment for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula was rightly passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court-Constitutional Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)...
-S. 2(ii)(ix)-Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5, Sched.--Khula-Suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty-.. Failure to prove cruelty---Whether khula can be granted where cruelty is not proved but marriage has irretrievably broken down? ---Held: Where a wife seeks dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty but fails to establish such cruelty, yet the evidence demonstrates that marital marital relations have irretrievably broken down with no possibility of reconciliation, the court may grant dissolution by way of khula rather than under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. EM
Muhammad Arif v. Saima Noreen 2015 SCMR 804 rel.
(c) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)---
---S. 2(ii)(ix)---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5, Sched.--Dissolution of marriage by way of khula, grant of---Essence and when the husband is unwilling to pronounce talaq--Khula can be independent right granted to a wife under Islamic law which enables her to seek dissolution ion of marriage even e granted without the wife having to prove any far fault, cruelty, suffices--If there is fixed aversion on the part of the wife or the husband, life becomes a torture for both-A woman cannot be misconduct on the part of the husband---The mere fact of intense dislike or aversion, making harmonious marital life impossible, compelled, if she has aversion to her husband, to live with him---When a wife has developed such intense aversion to her husband that it has become impossible for the spouses to live together and perform their marital obligations, and when reconciliation efforts have failed, the court may grant dissolution of marriage by way of khula.
Muhammad Arif v. Saima Noreen 2015 SCMR 804 rel.
(d) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (VIII of 1939)---
-Khula-Whether a a court can, of its own motion, motion, convert a p for 5. 2(ii)(ix)--Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5, Sched.---Khula-dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty into a decree for khula when khula has not been explicitly sought by the woman?---Held: Court cannot on its own pass a decree of khula if it has not been sought by the woman-Therefore, her consent is vital-While a court may have the power to grant khula when cruelty is not proved buť marital breakdown is evidenced, it cannot exercise this power without the wife's explicit, informed and voluntary consent.
PLD 2024 SC 645 rel.
(e) Constitution of Pakistan---
Art. 199-Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5, Sched.--Assumption of jurisdiction by High Court in family matters---Limitations and scope Right of appeal is the creation of the statute---Family Courts Act, 1964 does not provide the right of second appeal to any party to the proceedings---The legislature intended to place a full stop on family litigation after it was decided by the Appellate Court-Once a matter has been adjudicated upon on facts by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, Constitutional Courts should not exceed their powers by re-evaluating the facts or substituting the Appellate Court's opinion with their own-Acceptance of finality of the Appellate Court's findings is essential for achieving closure in legal proceedings, conclusively resolving disputes, preventing unnecessary litigation, and upholding the legislature's intent to provide a definitive resolution through the existing appeal mechanism.
Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara and others 2023 SCMR 413; M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari and 2 others 2023 SCMR 1434 and Fozia Mazhar v. Additional District Judge, Judge, Jhang Thang and others PLD 2024 SC 771 rel.
(f) Constitution of Pakistan---
-Art. 199-Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 5, Sched.--Concurrent judgments of the courts below-Interference by High Court under constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Findings of fact can only be interfered with if such findings are vitiated by any error of law, or if there has been misapplication of principles relating to appreciation of evidence or finality, or if the finding is demonstrated to be perverse or physically impossible-High Court can only interfere in concurrent findings of the courts below if the decisions passed by them are found to be patently illegal and against the law.
Mehmood Ahmed Awan for Petitioners.
Ex-parte: Respondent No. 3.