The Supreme Court Wednesday ruled that ambiguous terms in the ‘Nikah Nama’ (marriage contracts) could not be used against women.
The ruling came in a case filed by a petitioner Muhammad Yousaf whose appeal was dismissed by the apex court. Yousaf married second time with Huma Saeed in 2014 and later they divorced her in 2018. After the divorce, Yousaf refused to fulfil the dower conditions mentioned in the Nikah Nama and the main controversy revolved around a plot that he promised to give his wife and mentioned as a special condition in the Nikah Nama.
The petitioner took the stand that he offered the plot for the purpose of building a house there where both he and his wife could live. But despite an explicit description of the plot specifications in the Nikah Nama there was no such condition present there and the court was of the view that in case of ambiguity, the condition would be read in its plain and simplest meanings and without some solid proof of the petitioner's claim, the wife could not be deprived of her right mentioned in the Nikah Nama.
Supreme Court's Justice Athar Minallah has penned the 10-page decision and ruled that if there is ambiguity or doubt in the terms and conditions of the marriage contract or in any entry or column, then the benefit will be given to the wife
“The bride has full freedom to express her consent before the terms and conditions are fixed in the marriage contract. If there is ambiguity or doubt in the terms and conditions of the marriage contract or in any entry or column, then the benefit will be given to the wife,” the court observed.
The SC ruling said, “If the marriage certificate is filled by someone else without meaningful consultation of the bride, it cannot be used against the bride. “It is settled law that if there is any ambiguity in the terms, it will be determined by the original intention of the parties.”
The SC said that the courts should keep the points in mind while interpreting the terms and conditions of a marriage contract. It should be seen whether the bride had full freedom to express her consent before fixing the terms and conditions in the marriage contract.