سسر کی ملکیتی جائیداد بہو کے حق مہر میں شامل کرنے کے لیے رضامندی اور ثبوت ضروری ہیں — سپریم کورٹ
کیس حوالہ: 2026 SCMR 1293
مقدمے کا پس منظر
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے اپنے اہم فیصلے میں قرار دیا کہ کسی تیسرے شخص کی ملکیتی جائیداد کو اس کی واضح رضامندی اور قانونی ثبوت کے بغیر بیوی کے حق مہر میں شامل نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
مقدمے میں بیوی نے اپنے شوہر کے خلاف حق مہر کی وصولی کا دعویٰ دائر کیا، جس میں پانچ لاکھ روپے، سونے کے زیورات اور پشاور میں واقع ایک کنال پلاٹ شامل تھا۔ متنازعہ پلاٹ شوہر کے والد یعنی سسر کی ملکیت تھا۔
سسر نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ وہ نہ تو نکاح نامے کے فریق تھے اور نہ ہی انہوں نے اپنی جائیداد حق مہر میں دینے پر رضامندی ظاہر کی تھی۔
مبینہ کابین نامہ اور ملکیت کا تنازع
بیوی نے اپنے دعوے کے حق میں 24 فروری 2009ء کا ایک مبینہ کابین نامہ پیش کیا، جس میں پلاٹ کو حق مہر کا حصہ ظاہر کیا گیا تھا۔
سسر نے اس دستاویز کے اجرا اور اس پر اپنے دستخطوں سے انکار کیا۔ عدالت میں پیش کیے گئے گواہ بھی یہ ثابت نہ کر سکے کہ دستاویز ان کی موجودگی میں دستخط کی گئی تھی۔ مزید برآں، دستخطوں کی تصدیق کے لیے کوئی فرانزک معائنہ بھی نہیں کرایا گیا۔
ریونیو ریکارڈ کے مطابق پلاٹ سسر کے نام درج تھا، جبکہ مبینہ کابین نامے میں شوہر کو اس کا مالک ظاہر کیا گیا تھا۔ اس تضاد کو ماتحت عدالتوں نے مناسب طور پر مدنظر نہیں رکھا۔
سپریم کورٹ کا قانونی اصول
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ کسی تیسرے شخص کی ملکیتی جائیداد کو حق مہر کا حصہ بنانے کے لیے اس مالک کی واضح رضامندی ثابت ہونا ضروری ہے۔ محض کسی دستاویز میں جائیداد کا ذکر کر دینے سے اس کی ملکیت یا حق مہر میں شمولیت ثابت نہیں ہو جاتی۔
عدالت نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ اگر ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلے شواہد کو نظرانداز کرنے، غلط طور پر جانچنے یا قانون کے خلاف ہونے کی وجہ سے قانونی خامی کا شکار ہوں تو اعلیٰ عدالت ان میں مداخلت کر سکتی ہے۔ محض بیک وقت فیصلے ہونے کی بنیاد پر ایسی قانونی خامیوں کو نظرانداز نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
سپریم کورٹ کا حتمی فیصلہ
سپریم کورٹ نے بیوی کی جانب سے پلاٹ کو حق مہر کا حصہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکامی کی بنیاد پر ایک کنال پلاٹ دینے سے متعلق ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلے کالعدم قرار دے دیے۔
تاہم، پانچ لاکھ روپے اور سونے کے زیورات سے متعلق فیصلے برقرار رکھے گئے۔
اہم قانونی نکات
- کسی تیسرے شخص کی جائیداد کو اس کی رضامندی کے بغیر حق مہر میں شامل نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
- متنازعہ دستاویز کے اجرا اور دستخطوں کو قابلِ اعتماد شہادت سے ثابت کرنا ضروری ہے۔
- جائیداد کی ملکیت کے تعین میں ریونیو ریکارڈ اہم ثبوت ہو سکتا ہے۔
- ماتحت عدالتوں کے بیک وقت فیصلے قانون کے خلاف ہونے کی صورت میں اعلیٰ عدالت کی نظرثانی سے محفوظ نہیں رہتے۔
قانونی حوالہ: Sher Alam Khan v. Mst. Fozia Tabassum Afridi and others, 2026 SCMR 1293، سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان، فیصلہ مورخہ 30 مارچ 2026ء۔
Must read judgement.
2026 SCMR 1293
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Musarrat Hilali and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, JJ
SHER ALAM KHAN ---Petitioner
Versus
Mst. FOZIA TABBASUM AFRIDI and others ---Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 429-P of 2024, decided on 30th March, 2026.
(Against judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No.2566-P of 2020).
Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--
S.S-Suit for recovery of dower, gold ornaments and plot---Kabeen Nama---Proof Burden of proof---Property owned by third person included as dow lower Effect Concurrent findings of fact by the courts below-Scope Petitioner/ex-father-in-law of Pespondent was aggrieved by judgments and decrees passed by the courts below whereby suit filed by respondent for recovery of her dower, gold ornaments an her dower, goldbernant and was also not a signatory to the Nikahnama-Held: Property owned by a third person could not and plot in lieu of dower money nev was decreed against petitioner's son-Peti Petitioner denied having made part of dower unless there was clear, unequivocal and proven ver unless there was clear, unequivocal and proven consent of suchownained unproved, therefore, inclusion of kahnama such owner-Petitioner was not a signatory to the plot in dower co ward college be sustained-High Court should have examined whether could not be sustained---High Court should have examined whether the findings of the courtin belowership er the findings of the o courts below were sustainable in law, particularly in the light of the disputed execution of Kabeen Nama and absence of proof regarding ownership of the property-Failure of High Court to do so resulted in perpetuation of an illegality apparent on the face of the record--Supreme Court set aside concurrent findings of the courts below, to the extent of plot, as respondent had failed to prove that the formed part of dower---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Mushtaq and others v. Mst. Fatima and others PLD 2025 SC 434 rel.
Abdul Sattar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (via video link, Peshawar).
Respondent in person.
Inayat ur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (via video link, Peshawar).
Date of hearing: 30th March, 2026
JUDGMENT
Che MUSARRAT HILALI. I---This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No.2566-P/2020 (along with Writ Petition No.2581-P/2020), whereby the writ petition Court, filed by the present petitioner was dismissed and the concurrent ent fin findings of the learned Family Court as well as the Appellate Court were maintained. Through these judgments, the suit of respondent No.I was decreed, inter alia, to the extent of recovery her comprising Rs.5,00,000/-, gold ornaments and one kanal plot situated at Yasrab CNG Pump, Ring Road, Peshawar (hereinafter the Plot).
Briefly, the marriage between respondent No.1 Mst. Fozia Tabassum Afridi and the son of the petitioner namely Sahibzada Muhammad Ali (present respondent No.2) was solemnized on 27.01.2009, while rukhsati took place thereafter on 25.04.2009. Subsequently, a document styled as "Kabeen Nama" was allegedly executed on 24.02.2009, wherein the plot was mentioned as a part of the dower. The present controversy is confined to the inclusion of the plot as a part of the dower.
-
Arguments heard. Record of the case perused.
-
It is the case of the petitioner, who is the father-in-law of respondent No.1, that the plot was exclusively owned by him and not by his son. He further asserts that he was neither a signatory to the Nikahnama nor did he ever consented to the inclusion of the plot as a dower. Reliance, however, has been placed by respondent No.1 upon the "Kabeen Nama" dated 24.02.2009, allegedly executed after the marriage to establish that the plof formed part the dower.
denial The petitionere etitioner has categorically denied the execution of the Kabeen of the Kabeen Nama and his signatures as a witness thereon. Once such denial was made, the burden en squarely shifted upon respondent No. 1 to prove its execution through cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence. The record, however, reveals that no meaningful effort was undertaken to discharge this burden in accordance with the law. The Kabeen Nama was neither proved through direct evidence of execution nor the signatures of the petitioner subjected to forensic examination despite his specific denial
G The evidence led in support of the Kabeen is equally deficient and does not inspire confidence. The two marginal witnesses, namely PW-4 Noor Khan Afridi (father of respondent No.1) and PW-5 Jalal-ud-Din, failed to establish due execution of the Kabeen Nama. Significantly, PW-4, in his cross-examination, admitted that PW-5 was not present at the time when the parties allegedly signed the Kabeer PW-5, on the other hand, admitted that the parties had not signed the document in his presence. Thus, there is no direct or unequivocal evidence on record to to prove that the petitioner exec tioner executed the said document.
-
Another important aspect which has been overlooked by the Courts below is that even according to the contents of the Kabeen Nama, son of the petitioner is shown as the owner of the plot on the basis of mutation No.3604 dated 07.10.2003. No documentary evidence was produced to substantiate such ownership. This inherent contradiction strikes at the root of the respondent's claim and renders the Kabeen Nama itself doubtful. Moreover, the said mutation along with the relevant revenue record, as brought on record through the evidence of DW-3 (Halqa Patwari), clearly reflects the contrary position, showing the present petitioner as the recorded owner of the plot and not his son. This material piece of evidence has neither been properly appreciated nor even adverted to by the Courts below, thereby vitiating their findings on this crucial question of ownership.
-
It is settled that a property owned by a third person cannot be made part of dower unless there is clear, unequivocal and subsequent consent as witness through the Kabeen Nama also remains unproved. In such circumstances, the inclusion of the plof in consent of such owner. In present case, not only petitioner not a signatory to the Nikahnama, but the alleged the dower cannot be sustained.
matters, are not to be interfered with lightly. However, this Court has consistently held that such findings may be set aside where they 9. We are mindful of the well-settled principle that concurrent findin ings of fact recorded by the Courts below, particularly in family are the result of misreading or non-reading to properly appreciate the the property. The findin 434 199(1)(a)(ii) Furt tuti High ompete of evidence or are otherwise against the law. In the present case, the Courts below failed to the execution of the Kaheen Nama and ignored material aspects concerning ownership from patent legal infirmity. In Mushtaq and others v. Mst. Fatima and others PLD 2025 stitutional jurisdiction through a writ of certiorari under Article where the Courts below have acted in disregard of law or have based their conclusions on legally unsound reasonin further emphasised that an error of law apparent on the face of the record, particularly affectin ing the proper application of legal principles, cannot be allowed to perpetuate merely on the basis of concurrent confidence-inspiring evidence, however in the instant case, the Courts below have proceeded on assumptions and have recorded findings. Although, in the cited case, the execution of the Kabeen Nama was found to be duly proved through consistent, cogent and findings despite the absence of direct evidence regarding execution of the Kabeen Nama and ownership of the plot, thereby rendering their conclusions legally unsustainable.
examining whether the conclusions of the Courts below suffered from misapplication of law or were based on legally unsound. 10. The High Court, despite the presence of these patent legal infirmities, failed to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction. Instead of reasoning, it declined interference solely on the premise of concurrent findings of fact. This approach is inconsistent with the well-settled scope of certiorari jurisdiction, which mandates interference where findings are vitiated by apparent error, misreading of evidence, or violation of law, as was clearly the case in the present matter.
-
The High Court ought to have examined whether the findings of the Courts below were sustainable in particularly in of the disputed execution of the Kabeen Nama and absence of proof regarding ownership of the property. Its failure to do so resulted in perpetuation of an illegality apparent on the face of the record. We are of the considered opinion that the respondent No.1 failed to prove that the plot formed part of the dower. Consequently, the concurrent findings of the Courts below to this extent cannot be sustained.
-
In view of the above, this petition is converted into an appeal and partially allowed to the extent that the grant of one kanal plot situated at Yasrab CNG Pump, Ring Road, Peshawar, as dower în favour of respondent No.1 is set aside. The remaining findings of the Courts below are maintained.
-
Above are the reasons for our short order of even date, which is reproduced below:
"For the reasons to be recorded later, this petition is converted into an appeal and partially allowed in terms that the judgment of Senior Civil Judge Peshawar dated 23.06.2016 passed Case No.02/10 2010 demented learned Additional District Judge-X, Peshawar, dated 05.03.2020, 05.03.2020, passed pass in in Civil Civil Appeal Appeal No.01/ No.01/FCA of 2018 and the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2024, passed by learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P.2566-P/2020 are set aside to the extent of grant of one Ka situated at Yasrab CNG Pump, Ring Road Peshawar, bearing Khata No.571/1441, with reference Mutation No.3604, as dower to Respondent No.1. Stay application (C.M.A.No.570-P of 2024) is disposed of accordingly."
MH/S-23/SC
Order accordingly.