Dowry disputes remain one of the most frequently litigated issues in Pakistani family courts. From questions of proof and valuation to limitation and execution, dowry articles cases often hinge on how well pleadings are drafted and how effectively precedents are invoked. Over the years, the superior courts of Pakistan have developed a rich body of case law that guides both litigants and practitioners on what counts as dowry, how presumptions operate, and how evidence is to be appreciated. This article brings together the most important judgments, organized by theme, so that lawyers can quickly find authoritative support for pleadings, cross-examination, or execution strategy, while litigants gain a clearer understanding of their rights.
What are Dowry Articles?
The Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 defines “dowry” as the property, gifts, or articles given to a bride at or about the time of her marriage, which become her exclusive property. This statutory framework makes clear that dowry is distinct from general marital exchanges or family-to-family gifts. Pakistani courts have consistently emphasized that dowry comprises items meant for the bride’s use and welfare, such as household articles, clothing, and jewelry.
Importantly, gifts presented to the husband are not included in dowry. The Lahore High Court reiterated that articles or valuables given directly to the groom, in his own right, cannot be treated as part of the wife’s recoverable dowry. To avoid conflation, pleadings must separately address claims for appreciation, depreciation, or “snatched gold,” and clearly distinguish between dowry belonging to the wife and gifts bestowed upon the husband.
Muhammad Afzal v. Additional District Judge Lahore (PLD 2023 Lahore 669)
Presumptions Regarding Dowry Articles
The apex courts have reaffirmed that proceedings concerning the recovery of dowry articles under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, are governed by familial and societal realities rather than stringent evidentiary rules of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court held that the Family Court may adopt any suitable procedure unless explicitly prohibited by law, and that the mere technical omission of formally proving a document does not invalidate a genuine claim.
Significantly, the solitary statement of the wife, supported by a list of dowry articles, excluding gold ornaments, was deemed sufficient to substantiate her claim. The judgment underscored that, in such family disputes, the requirements of the Qanun-e-Shahadat are expressly excluded, and that the Family Court, as a special forum, applies more flexible and equitable standards. Given the procedural constraints and timing of appeal, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s reliance on the wife’s assertion and dismissed the husband’s petition.
Amir Shehzad V Additional District Judge Multan 2015 CLC 632.
Following are some well known case laws about established presumptions:-
1. Presumption that dowry accompanies Rukhsati:
In many suits there is no perfect documentary trail. The Rukhsati presumption lets courts infer that a customary trousseau moved with the bride, shifting practical pressure to the husband to rebut with cogent evidence.
The following judgements revolve around the question of whether dowry articles can be presumed to have been given when Rukhsati has taken place. The trial court had rejected the petitioner’s claim for return of dowry on the ground that she belonged to a large family of twelve siblings, hence her parents could not afford to give her dowry. The appellate court later upheld this dismissal by relying on the presumption that Pathan families do not give dowry to their daughters. Both courts were found to have erred in law, as such presumptions are unwarranted, baseless, and without any legal foundation.
The superior court emphasized that dowry giving is a well-entrenched social custom, observed across all financial classes, and once Rukhsati occurs, the delivery of dowry articles is presumed in law. The judgment clarified that customs or generalizations like financial inability or ethnic traditions (such as Pathans not giving dowry) cannot be judicially noticed as facts under Articles 111 and 112 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and therefore cannot be used to dismiss a legitimate claim. Ultimately, it was held that both the trial and appellate courts misdirected themselves, and the return of articles was legally justified.
Muhammad Sagheer V Aneesha Shabbir PLD 2022 SC 26
Shafique Sultan v. Mst. Asma Firdous and others (2017 SCMR 393);
Mst. Arooj Malik and another v. Additional District Judge and others (2017 CLC (Note) 16);
Mst. Sahib Noor v. Zafar Iqbal and others (2011 YLR 1268);
M. Jaffar v. Additional District Judge and others (2005 MLD 1069).
Mst. Sharaini Bibi V Additional District Judge 2023 MLD 51
2. Presumption relating to Solitary statement of wife:
In matters of dowry recovery, Pakistani jurisprudence consistently emphasizes that strict evidentiary formalities under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, do not rigidly apply in family court proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1964. Courts have repeatedly observed that expecting a bride to produce receipts or a formally signed list of dowry items is unrealistic and contrary to ground realities, as such evidentiary technicalities cannot defeat a legitimate claim. Sole statement of wife is sufficient to prove her claim of dowry articles and she is not required to prove the case in terms of requirements of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, by producing a certain number of witnesses in support of her claim.
Mst. Shakeela Bibi v. Muhammad Israr (2012 MLD 756)
Meharban Hussain V Zahida Kosar 2022 YLR 2454
Where the list of dowry articles reflects items ordinarily given to a bride at the time of marriage, the courts have accepted oral testimony, customs, and societal context as sufficient proof of delivery. Collectively, this jurisprudence establishes a legal presumption that once Rukhsati has taken place, dowry articles are presumed to have been delivered, and a wife’s assertion—even without formal documentary evidence—may validly substantiate her claim.
Muhammad Habib v. Mst. Safia Bibi (2008 SCMR 1584);
Mirza Arshad Baig v. ADJ, Multan (2005 SCMR 1740).
3. Presumption about giving maximum dowry by parents:
In suits for recovery of dowry articles, the courts have recognized that the financial position of the bride’s parents does not negate the presumption that dowry was given. In Pakistani society, it is a deeply entrenched custom that parents provide dowry to their daughters at the time of marriage, often exceeding their financial means or even incurring debt. Therefore, once it is shown that the articles were in the possession of the husband and he does not deny their presence in his house, the presumption strongly supports the wife’s claim for recovery, irrespective of whether her parents were wealthy or poor.
Muhammad Saeed v. Additional District Judge and others (2019 CLC 1008);
4. Presumption that gold is usually in possession of females:
Pakistani law presumes that gold ornaments, being items of personal use, ordinarily remain in the possession of the wife during the subsistence of marriage. Consequently, if the wife claims that such ornaments were taken or snatched by the husband, the burden lies on her to establish this fact with clear and reliable evidence. Unless she alleges and successfully proves such dispossession, the courts will not order recovery against the husband. This principle ensures that claims over gold ornaments are not accepted on mere allegations but must be substantiated by convincing proof.
Muhammad Afzal V Additional district Judge, Lahore . (PLD 2023 Lahore 669;
Javed Iqbal V Additional District Judge Faisalabad and another 2017 CLC Note 25
Azhar Mehmood V Mst. Hafeez-un- Nisa (PLD 2014 Lahore 131).
5. Presumption of dowry in absence of receipts:
The Islamabad High Court reaffirmed that dowry recovery claims cannot be defeated merely on the ground that the wife did not produce receipts or documentary proof of purchase. The Court held that in Pakistani society, it is customary for parents to provide dowry to their daughters at the time of marriage, and this social practice is so entrenched that the law presumes its existence once rukhsati takes place. It was emphasized that insisting on receipts or formal documentation would be unrealistic, as most families neither maintain written records nor obtain bills for such articles.
The oral testimony of the wife, supported by a credible list of articles, is sufficient to establish her claim unless specifically rebutted through strong evidence by the husband. Therefore, the absence of receipts does not, by itself, negate the presumption of delivery of dowry articles, and courts must evaluate such claims in light of prevailing customs, traditions, and probabilities.
Nasir Mehmood v. Additional District Judge Islamabad-West and others (2023 CLC 350)
Determination of value of Dowry Articles:
The value of Dowry Articles is determined on the basis of following factors:
1. Depreciation of value of dowry articles:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan recognized that dowry articles and household goods, once used, cannot be valued at their original purchase price for the purpose of recovery. The Court emphasized the principle of fairness and equity, holding that annual depreciation must be applied to reflect the actual value of the items at the time of litigation. Household articles, furniture, and appliances are subject to wear and tear, and courts have therefore accepted percentage-based deductions, commonly in the range of 5% to 6% per annum, as a reasonable measure. This approach ensures that recovery decrees represent the equitable replacement value of the goods rather than an inflated or unrealistic figure.
For litigants, the proper plea is to request the application of depreciation, showing that although the wife is entitled to return or compensation for her dowry, the valuation should be reduced proportionately with usage. Thus, this case stands as a guiding precedent for adjusting claims of recovery to fair market value by accounting for depreciation over time.
Case law: Shafique Sultan v. Mst. Asma Firdous (2017 SCMR 393).
2. Valuation of Gold Ornaments at Prevailing Market Rate:
The apex court held that gold ornaments, unlike other dowry items, must be valued according to the prevailing market rate at the time of realization or execution of the decree. The Court reasoned that gold is a precious commodity whose price fluctuates constantly, and fixing its value as per the rate at the time of marriage or at the institution of the suit would unfairly under-compensate the wife due to inflation and market volatility. To ensure equity, decrees concerning recovery of gold ornaments should therefore expressly state that valuation will be made on the market price at the time of actual recovery.
For practitioners, a useful drafting strategy is to plead for decree wording that specifically pegs the ornaments’ value to the current market rate at realization or execution, rather than a historic or arbitrary figure. This approach not only aligns with judicial precedent but also protects the wife from financial loss caused by the depreciation of currency or appreciation of gold prices over time.
Haji Muhammad Nawaz V Samina Kanwal 2017 SCMR 321
Consideration of credible documentary evidence to prove dowry items
1. Non-Original Dowry List and Its Evidentiary Value
In the case of Allah Rakhi, the Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down that the evidentiary worth of a dowry list is significantly diminished if it is not the original list prepared at the time of rukhsati. Where the plaintiff admits that the list was neither contemporaneously prepared nor personally verified, or if she lacks knowledge of its contents, the list cannot be treated as reliable evidence. The Court emphasized that in the absence of independent corroboration, such as testimony of witnesses present at the time of marriage, or other credible supporting evidence, the courts must be cautious in accepting photocopies or subsequently prepared lists. Such documents are susceptible to fabrication and exaggeration.
For the defense, this precedent provides a strong ground to contest recovery claims: if the dowry list produced is not original and the plaintiff herself admits that it was prepared later or without her direct knowledge, then the claim for dowry can justifiably be dismissed.
Mst. Allah Rakhi v. Tanvir Iqbal and others (2004 SCMR 1739).
2. Production of list or receipt after cross-examination through statement of lawyer
The courts have cautioned against attempts to introduce documents belatedly through counsel’s statement after cross-examination is complete. In 2025 MLD 573, it was held that production of a list or receipt of dowry articles at such a late stage cannot be treated as proper evidence. A lawyer’s statement is not a substitute for testimony of a competent witness, nor does it cure the omission of timely production. The ruling underscores that parties must present their documentary evidence during examination-in-chief, subject to cross-examination, to ensure transparency, credibility, and adherence to the evidentiary rules under law.
Manzoor Ahmad V Charagh Din 2025 mld 573
3. Receipts and documentary proof for Gold
The Balochistan High Court stressed the importance of producing credible receipts and documentary proof in dowry disputes, particularly for gold ornaments. The Court observed that purchase slips, valuation certificates, or even records of mobile money transfers can strengthen a party’s claim. If original documents are unavailable, litigants must explain the chain of custody and seek admission of secondary evidence under the law. This case highlights that timely production of reliable documents, supported by witness testimony, ensures authenticity and helps the court grant equitable relief while minimizing doubts about fabrication.
Behzad Hussain V Bibi Ansa 2023 CLC 143
4. Simple photocopies in evidence
In such like cases, the courts emphasize the evidentiary standard required for reliance on documents. Simple photocopies, if produced without proper proof, hold no evidentiary value. They must be exhibited through a competent witness who can establish their origin and authenticity. The photocopies cannot substitute primary evidence unless admissibility is established under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Parties must therefore present originals or justify their absence with legal grounds. This ensures fairness in adjudication and prevents fabricated or unreliable evidence from influencing the outcome of dowry recovery claims. It is a settled rule of law that a document that has not been lawfully produced and exhibited in the Court is not worthy of being considered as evidence/proof of a fact.
Mst. Noor Jehan and another V Saleem Shahadat “
2022 SCMR 918
Dowry Articles Cases: Forum and Jurisdiction
1. Territorial jurisdiction
Jurisdictions of Family Courts are provided in Rule 6 of the Family Courts Rules 1965. For the purpose of discussion, the same is reproduced below:
- The Court, which shall have jurisdiction to try a suit, will be that within the local limits of which
(a) the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen, or
(b) where the parties reside or last resided together:
Provided that in suits for dissolution of marriage or dower, the Court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resides shall also have jurisdiction.
In a case, where it was apparent from pleading and evidence that the defendant (husband) was admittedly the resident of the district Hyderabad, Sindh, hence, the dowry articles of the plaintiff (of whatever value it was) were shifted to the defendant’s residence at Hyderabad Sindh from where defendant allegedly expelled wife two years ago. Hence, it is clear that neither the defendant was a resident of District Multan nor the parties lastly resided together in Multan, and not even the cause of action arose in Multan. CNIC of plaintiff, which is attached with the plaint, shows that the temporary and permanent residence of the plaintiff is Hyderabad. It was obligatory for the plaintiff to annex the proof of her residence at Multan, however, she produced nothing.
The view is settled that In terms of Article 175(2) of the Constitution, no court has any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law. Jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain, hear, and adjudicate upon matters specified in Part I of the Schedule to the family Courts Act, 1964 (Act’) is governed by section 5 of the Act. The matters specified in the Schedule to the Act include dowry articles as Item No.8. On matters specified under the Act, Rule 6 of the Family Court Rules, 1965 governs territorial jurisdiction of a Family Court. In terms of Rule 6 ibid, the Family Court which has jurisdiction to try a suit for dowry articles is the one within the local limits of which the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen, or where the parties reside or last resided together. Reliance in this context is placed upon the esteemed case law title “Muhammad Arif V Fouzia Nasreen and others” 2023 MLD 914
Since it is not the claim for dissolution of marriage or dower, in which case, the Court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resides also has jurisdiction, rather it is claim for recovery of dowry for which it is compulsory that the parties must be residents within the local limits of the court. Keeping in view that neither the cause of action arise nor the parties reside or lastly resided together within the local limits of Multan court, hence, Multan court has no jurisdiction to try this suit, therefore, the plaint of this suit is returned.
2. Maintainability despite Dowry & Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976
In dowry recovery disputes, objections are sometimes raised that the Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 bars the maintainability of suits before civil or family courts. However, the law is settled that the Act primarily creates a penal and administrative framework and does not restrict the right of an aggrieved woman to seek recovery of her dowry articles. Family Courts, under the Family Courts Act, 1964, retain jurisdiction to entertain such claims as specifically provided in its schedule. Therefore, recovery suits remain fully maintainable despite the existence of the Restriction Act.
Key citations:
Muhammad Tazeel V Khair Un Nisa
1995 SCMR 885;
Mst. Naseem Sharif V Imtiaz Ali Khan
2006 CLC 1393
3. Forum and subject-matter jurisdiction over dowry
In disputes concerning dowry articles and personal belongings, the question of forum and subject-matter jurisdiction frequently arises. Pakistani jurisprudence has clarified that such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Family Court, as recovery of dowry is explicitly listed in the schedule to the Family Courts Act, 1964. To preempt technical objections, pleadings should be carefully drafted to align with the relevant heads in the schedule, ensuring that the Family Court is properly seized of the claim. This approach avoids delays and strengthens the maintainability of recovery suits.
Syed Mukhtiar Hussain Shah V Mst Saba Imtiaz
PLD 2011 SC 260
4. Dowry of deceased lady, civil court proceedings required
When a married woman dies, her dowry remains her property and devolves to her heirs under succession. If recovery is sought after her death, a fresh suit by heirs does not lie in the Family Court; they must proceed in the Civil Court (e.g., declaration/possession or alternate value) after pleading (i) the full pedigree of legal heirs, (ii) each heir’s Qur’anic share, and (iii) how title devolved and where the chattels/price are detained. Only where the wife had already filed a Family Court suit during her lifetime may her legal representatives be substituted to continue it.
Azmat Jahan V Additional District Judge 2023 MLD 92
Limitation Period for recovery of Dowry Articles.
In dowry recovery litigation, the question of limitation is often decisive. The court observed that possession of articles by the husband becomes wrongful either at the time of divorce or upon refusal after a specific demand for return. Under Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a suit for recovery of specific moveable property must be filed within three years from the date the possession becomes unlawful. Where no precise date of demand or refusal is proved, the presumption may arise that dowry articles were already taken back. Delay in instituting proceedings, therefore, can render the suit barred by time.
Key Citation: Rabia Gulzar v. Additional District Judge (2016 MLD 693)
Framing of Issues over dispute of Missing & Remaining Dowry Articles
If during the proceedings of suits, the articles are handed over by the husband to the wife but still there is dispute to the extent of remaining dowry, then the courts are bound to frame the issues to the extent of the rest of dowry and adjudicate the same after collecting evidence.
Waqas Ilyas Vs Reema Rehman and another 2020 YLR 2693
In disputes over missing dowry articles, the courts require strict proof before granting relief. A party alleging that certain items are missing must convincingly establish their existence and delivery, either through receipts, shopkeepers’ testimony, or other reliable evidence. Where no such material is produced, bare allegations cannot sustain a decree. In one case, the Family Court bailiff prepared a list of articles, yet the claimant denied portions of it and alleged additional missing items without supporting proof. The High Court held that in the absence of evidence, entitlement to alleged missing articles could not be recognized, and the decree was set aside to that extent.
Sayyab Khan V Mst. Tayyaba Bibi 2023 CLC 1344
Delivery of Dowry Articles or its alternate Value
In dowry recovery proceedings, courts frequently address the question of whether the decree should be executed through return of articles or their assessed value in the alternative. Under Order XX, Rule 10 CPC, a decree for specific movable property ordinarily allows the defendant the option either to deliver the articles or pay their value. However, where articles are missing, destroyed, or not recoverable, courts have held that execution should proceed directly for the money portion of the decree rather than opening new controversies about delivery after long delays.
In one case, the husband had earlier denied the very existence of dowry articles in his possession, yet attempted during execution to deliver items years later. The court found this untenable, emphasizing that once possession was denied and the decree had attained finality, the only proper course was to enforce the monetary value awarded. Appointment of a commission for inspection was deemed unnecessary, and the petition was dismissed, reaffirming that alternate relief through payment stands when actual delivery is no longer feasible.
Muhammad Akram V Mst. Shahida Pareveen
Pld 2004 lahore 249
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Dowry Articles:
1. Are gifts given to the husband considered dowry?
No. Courts have clarified that groom’s gifts are not dowry and must be pleaded separately. (Muhammad Afzal v. ADJ Lahore, PLD 2023 Lahore 669).
2. Is a wife’s solitary statement enough to prove dowry articles?
Yes. Family Court proceedings are not bound by strict QSO rules. A wife’s statement supported by a list is sufficient, unless strongly rebutted. (Mst. Shakeela Bibi v. Muhammad Israr, 2012 MLD 756; Muhammad Habib v. Safia Bibi, 2008 SCMR 1584).
3. What is the presumption about dowry at the time of Rukhsati?
It is presumed that dowry accompanies rukhsati. This shifts the burden to the husband to prove otherwise. (Muhammad Sagheer v. Aneesha Shabbir, PLD 2022 SC 26).
4. Who is presumed to have custody of gold ornaments?
Gold is usually presumed to remain in the wife’s possession. If she alleges snatching, she must prove it with reliable evidence. (Azhar Mehmood v. Hafeez-un-Nisa, PLD 2014 Lahore 131).
5. Can dowry claims be dismissed for lack of receipts?
No. Courts recognize that receipts are rarely kept in Pakistani families. Oral testimony and a credible list suffice. (Nasir Mehmood v. ADJ Islamabad-West, 2023 CLC 350).
6. How do courts value dowry articles?
Household goods: depreciated annually (5–6%). (Shafique Sultan v. Asma Firdous, 2017 SCMR 393).
Gold ornaments: valued at prevailing market rate at realization/execution. (Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Samina Kanwal, 2017 SCMR 321).
7. Are photocopies acceptable as evidence of dowry?
Not without proof. Photocopies must be exhibited through a competent witness; otherwise, they are inadmissible. (Mst. Noor Jehan v. Saleem Shahadat, 2022 SCMR 918).
8. Can a dowry list or receipts be produced after cross-examination?
No. Documents produced late, through a lawyer’s statement after cross-examination, carry no evidentiary value. (Manzoor Ahmad v. Charagh Din, 2025 MLD 573).
9. If wife dies before filing of suit, which court handles dowry recovery?
Fresh suits by heirs must be filed in the Civil Court, as dowry devolves through succession. Family Court jurisdiction applies only if the wife herself had filed during her lifetime. (Azmat Jahan v. ADJ, 2023 MLD 92).
10. Does the Dowry & Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 bar recovery suits?
No. The Act is penal/administrative and does not oust Family Court jurisdiction. (Muhammad Tazeel v. Khair-un-Nisa, 1995 SCMR 885; Mst. Naseem Sharif v. Imtiaz Ali Khan, 2006 CLC 1393).
11. What is the limitation period for dowry suits?
Three years from divorce or from the first demand/refusal. Courts may apply the continuing cause principle if unlawful retention continues. (Rabia Gulzar v. ADJ, 2016 MLD 693).
12. What if some dowry articles are missing or in dispute?
The court must frame clear issues on possession, delivery, and value. Strict proof is required for missing items; bare allegations are insufficient. (Waqas Ilyas v. Reema Rehman, 2020 YLR 2693; Sayyab Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi, 2023 CLC 1344).
13. At execution, is the husband bound to return articles or pay money?
Under Order XX, Rule 10 CPC, the husband may return the articles or pay their value. If articles are missing or delivery is denied, execution proceeds for the money value only. (Muhammad Akram v. Shahida Parveen, PLD 2004 Lahore 249).
