Skip to main content

Gifts belong to the wife in case of divorce

By


According to Islam a wife is entitled to receive her haq mehr in case if
she is divorced by her husband. Haq mehr is not the only thing which
the wife takes home in case of divorce. She is entitled for other things
such as her dowry articles and gifts which she receive during the
tenure of relationship.

Often it happens that when the husband divorces his wife, she leaves the
house of husband immediately in single clothes. Her suitcases, jewelry,
dowry articles and other belongings remain in the house of husband
unless the parties come to an understanding later on.

The wife is entitled to receive everything belonging to her lying in the
house of her husband. The things gifted to her during the time of
relationship belong to her. Gift in islamic law can never be taken back
by the person gifting. So it is best to return gifts and all other
belongings to the girl once she is divorced.

In order to remove further disputes it is best to handover everything
through proper legal channel. For more consult
internationallawyerinfo@gmail.com

Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan
Family Lawyer
+92-333-5339880
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The right to life and dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education

By
PLJ 2018 Lahore 646 (FB) Present :  Abid Aziz Sheikh, Shams Mehmood Mirza and Shahid Karim, JJ. CITY SCHOOL PRIVATE LIMITED--Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB etc.--Respondents W.P. No. 29724 of 2015, decided on 5.4.2018. Constitution of  Pakistan , 1973-- ----Arts. 9, 14, 18, 25-A, 37(b) 38(d)-- Punjab  Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulations Ordinance, 1984 and Rules, 1984, R. 7-A--Amendment--Restructions were imposed--Fee increased for any academic year for not more than 5% and 8% retrospective effect--Question of--Whether amendment regarding fixation and determination fee of private schools which as claimed by Government is ensure not to allow commercialization, profiteering and expatition--Right to education--The right to life and dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education--Principles of policy--Right to education is also guaranteed under Arts. 37(b) & 38(d)--Principles...
Post a Comment
Read more

Women Rights Judgment on Article 25(3) of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973

By
  PLJ 1990 SC 346  [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present:  MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH CJ AND RUSTAM S. SlDHWA J  Mst.  FATAL JAN-Petitioner versus ROSHAN DIN and 2 others-Respondents  Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 9-R of 1990, allowed on 24.4.1990 [On appeal from judgment dated 18.12.1989, of Peshawar High Court, Circuit  Bench Abbottabad, in Civil Revision No. 89 of 1985]  (i) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- —-Art. 25(3)-Women-Protection of-Fundamental right of-Petitioner who  appeared in person, is apparently incapable of conducting this complicated  case herself-It is in interest of justice that she should be provided with  assistance of competent experienced civil lawyer in pursuance of fundamental  right contained in Article 25 clause (3)~Held: Protection under this Article does not only mean protection of body but also rights—Held further: Rights include property rights.     [P.349JC (ii) Inheritance- —Inhe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Order of Wafaqi Mohtasib accepting grievance petition

By
  PLJ 2003  Peshawar  336 (DB) Present :  SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN AND QAZI EHSANULLAH QURESHI, JJ. PAKISTAN  RAILWAYS through DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT  PAKISTAN  RAILWAYS, PESHAWAR-Petitioner versus SAID MUHAMMAD and 2 others-Respondents W.P. No. 863 of 2000, decided on 14.4.2003. ( i ) Establishment of the Office of  Wafaqi   Mohtasib  (Ombudsman)  Order (1 of 1983)-- —-S. 32-Order of  Wafaqi   Mohtasib  accepting grievance petition of  respondent (employee) and holding him entitled to ' full  pension/commutation on the post, assailed—Respondent having been  retired from service on 27.8.1997, could not have been reverted to his  substantive post on 26.3.1998, after about 7 months of his retirement- Petitioner failed to prefer representation before President in terms of  . S. 32 of the Order (1 of 1983) and thus, did not avail remedy provided by  law-Another colleague of respondent who in sim...
Post a Comment
Read more