Women’s Disadvantage In Marriage: Advancements Made In A Women’s Right To Divorce.

Introduction: What is Khula?

To be in a situation where a woman cannot leave an abusive marriage due to the fear of losing it all has been the reality of Pakistani women for ages. What is Khula? Khula is the legal remedy in Pakistan that allows a woman to seek dissolution of marriage through the family court when continuation of the marital relationship becomes impossible.¹ The woman does not receive dowry and Haq Mehr, or dower, that is, the specified amount of money, jewellery, or property that a husband pledges to pay or provide for his wife,² once she opts for Khula. As per the laws of Pakistan, there are three ways to end a marriage: divorce, Khula, and dissolution of marriage.

The right of divorce for the husband, and the right of dissolution for both the husband and the wife, have been given in the Divorce Act 1869.³ The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 (DMMA) likewise provides for dissolution. The right to divorce is also distinctly mentioned in the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, s 7,⁴ which refers to it as Talaq. Along with that, the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, s 8,⁵ deals with a woman’s right to Khula, that is, dissolution of marriage otherwise than by Talaq.

In Pakistan, approximately 57% of women have experienced physical violence in marriage, 53% have experienced sexual violence in marriage, and 83% have experienced psychological abuse in marriage.⁶ This has led to an increased rate of Khula; however, women often do not receive proper financial compensation, or what was pledged to them at the time of marriage.

The Problem with the “Shortcut”

Often, lower courts preferred a “shortcut”: they would dissolve marriages through Khula rather than through dissolution of marriage in order to close the file quickly, for the sake of their own convenience. The Supreme Court has recognised this as an issue, since choosing to dissolve a marriage through Khula disadvantages the woman, specifically where the reason for dissolution was abuse, whether financial, mental, or physical.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that family courts must no longer convert a wife’s demand for divorce into Khula proceedings without the wife’s consent, as doing so deprives her of her right to dower or Haq Mehr. As stated in the case of Mst Naila Javed & another v Nasir Khan & others, “A court cannot, on its own motion, convert a suit under the DMMA into one for khula in the absence of a clear and unequivocal statement by the wife.”⁷

Judgments in which courts have granted Khula without consent are thus deemed not legally binding. This leaves women able to escape abuse without the worry of not receiving the dower pledged in the Nikkahnama, which is a binding legal contract signed upon marriage.

Various cases have arisen in which a suit for dissolution of marriage under the DMMA was converted into Khula without the wife’s consent, leaving women with very little choice but to stay in abusive marriages for fear of financial difficulty. Moreover, upon bringing a suit for dissolution of marriage, women have also faced character assassination and patriarchal beliefs in the judgments of the lower courts. This was seen in Dr. Seema Hanif Khan v Waqas Khan and others, where the judgment described Dr Seema’s wish to be educated and to have a career as her being a “disobedient wife”, thereby converting her case into one of Khula by blaming her. The Supreme Court heavily criticised such patriarchal and biased statements⁸ that assassinate a woman’s character on baseless grounds.⁹

Recognising All Forms of Cruelty

Moreover, Dr. Seema Hanif Khan clarifies a very important factor, namely abuse. It reinforces the idea that abuse is not limited to the physical, but ranges from physical assault to mental or emotional abuse and financial abuse. It thus acts as a landmark case in ensuring that all courts recognise all forms of cruelty equally, while defining each aspect of cruelty in depth, such as emotional cruelty, including neglect or indifference. Any such act is to be considered abuse as long as it leads the wife to feel that her living conditions are intolerable and unlivable. Courts are therefore required to assess cruelty in every plausible aspect, including but not limited to physical, mental, emotional, and environmental.

Through this judgment, the Supreme Court also clarified that abuse in a marriage must not be viewed through the lens of a criminal case requiring solid proof beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, the test of cruelty is subjective,¹⁰ and is assessed through the toll that the cruelty has taken on the affected woman. Once a woman raises potential grounds of cruelty, they must be assessed according to the civil standard of proof, which means that the evidence need not be beyond reasonable doubt but must be sufficient to show that a fact is more likely to be true, making it easier to prove. This is important because proving mental or emotional abuse, and even physical abuse, in a marriage can be incredibly difficult for the abused. Moreover, abuse often takes place within four walls, leaving no witnesses.¹¹

This case thus clarified various scenarios while creating safe and just methods for a woman to leave an abusive marriage, by not limiting abuse to extreme physical violence, as every woman has the right to live comfortably in her own home without fearing her partner.

Second Marriage Without Consent

In the same case, the Supreme Court also criticised the family court’s decision to defend the respondent’s second marriage despite it being blatantly against the law, as the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance¹² makes it an offence to contract a second marriage without written consent from the first wife. The family court claimed that, because the wife was not fulfilling her duties as a wife, the husband was forced to proceed to a second marriage. The Supreme Court, however, deemed this illogical and holding no weight, as a husband cannot be forced into a second marriage; it was clearly a baseless claim made to blame the respondent.¹³

Hence, through various cases, the Supreme Court has put an end to the clear bias that had been taking place in the lower courts. It has also made the resolution of future cases of abuse easier by clearing up misunderstandings that have persisted over the years.

The Significance of the Advancements

In my opinion, the Supreme Court’s verdicts in both cases were incredibly important. Without them, the law of Pakistan would have led to injustice within marriages, specifically towards women, considering that, according to statistics, 34% of ever-married women have experienced spousal physical, sexual, or emotional violence.¹⁴

The advancements made by the Supreme Court prevent lower courts from proceeding with injustice by following an extremely patriarchal system and ideology. The ruling that prevents family courts from taking a suit for dissolution and converting it into Khula not only stops the patriarchal system from prevailing, but also protects the rights of women by ensuring that the dower is received, leaving no room for financial difficulty for the woman upon leaving an abusive marriage.

I believe this was a highly necessary step in the evolution of Pakistani law and society, further ensuring clarity of Islamic values by ensuring equality between both partners within a marriage. These cases also ensure justice by preventing second marriages without consent and by reducing all opportunities for courts to defend a second marriage without consent, which would be unlawful given the clear laws making a second marriage without the first wife’s consent an offence.

Hence, the advancements made by the Supreme Court reduce all chances of lower courts or respondents finding loopholes, whether for the sake of finishing a case quickly or for the sake of avoiding payment of the owed amount pledged in the Nikkahnama, which can extend from money to plots to gold.

Remaining Challenges

However, various issues still arise despite the Supreme Court’s clarification of several aspects. On paper, preventing the wrongful conversion of dissolution of marriage into Khula may protect a woman’s dower, but actually receiving it is a long battle that continues for years, placing even more burden on the woman through legal fees. Moreover, why was Supreme Court intervention necessary? Should the family court’s interpretation of the law not have been enough? And considering that this has happened various times, can we truly ensure that justice will prevail for women in family courts and that history will not repeat itself?

Regardless, questions remain: although the Supreme Court has made advancements, are they truly enough to eliminate all the difficulties that a woman faces whilst leaving an abusive marriage? There is a lot more to it than the mere protection of dower. When one considers all the factors that stop a woman from leaving an abusive marriage, such as societal pressure, lack of support, mental and psychological damage, and a lack of immediate protection, the advancement made by the Supreme Court feels rather minor. However, eliminating the factor of financial distress to a great extent, by keeping the option of dissolution of marriage open for women, is a huge step towards ensuring justice and should not be taken lightly, as every step matters. Every action counts.

Footnote(S):

¹ ‘Khula in Pakistan – Complete Legal Procedure & Family Court Process (2026 Guide) – Family Lawyer & Law Firm in Lahore %’ 1 <https://paklawyer.com/khula-in-pakistan-procedure/> accessed 26 August 2026.

² Awan P, ‘Supreme Court Affirms Women’s Claim to Haq Mehr at Any Time’ (Courting The Law, 16 December 2023) <http://courtingthelaw.com/2023/12/16/commentary/supreme-court-affirms-womens-claim-to-haq-mehr-at-any-time/> accessed 26 August 2026

³ ‘Divorce Act,1869’ <https://pakistancode.gov.pk/english/UY2FqaJw1-apaUY2Fqa-a5Y%3D-sg-jjjjjjjjjjjjj> accessed 26 August 2026.

⁴ ‘Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, s 7 <https://pakistancode.gov.pk/english/UY2FqaJw1-apaUY2Fqa-apaUY2Npa5po-sg-jjjjjjjjjjjjj> accessed 26 August 2026.

⁵ ‘Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, s 8 <https://pakistancode.gov.pk/english/UY2FqaJw1-apaUY2Fqa-apaUY2Npa5po-sg-jjjjjjjjjjjjj> accessed 26 August 2026.

⁶ Ali and others, ‘Intimate Partner Violence in Urban Pakistan: Prevalence, Frequency, and Risk Factors’ [2011] International Journal of Women’s Health 105 <https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S17016> accessed 26 August 2026.

⁷ Mst. Naila Javed & another v Nasir Khan & others, CP No. 3767 of 2025 (Supreme court of Pakistan) [9] https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/c.p._3767_2025.pdf accessed 26th August

⁸ Dr Seema Hanif Khan v Waqas Khan and others [2024] CPLA No 3268, [11] [18]

⁹ Dr Seema Hanif Khan v Waqas Khan and others [2024] CPLA No 3268 https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/c.p._3268_2024.pdf accessed 26 August 2026

¹⁰ Dr Seema Hanif Khan v Waqas Khan and others [2024] CPLA No 3268, [9]

¹¹ Dr Seema Hanif Khan v Waqas Khan and others [2024] CPLA No 3268, [10]

¹² Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, s 6(1) <https://pakistancode.gov.pk/english/UY2FqaJw1-apaUY2Fqa-apaUY2Npa5po-sg-jjjjjjjjjjjjj> accessed 26 August 2026.

¹³ Dr Seema Hanif Khan v Waqas Khan and others [2024] CPLA No 3268, [16]

¹⁴ ‘Gender-Based Violence’ (UNFPA Pakistan) <https://pakistan.unfpa.org/en/topics/gender-based-violence-6> accessed 27 August 2026