Skip to main content

Returning of Dowry Articles in case of Divorce

By


In cases of divorce people are usually concerned what to return to the
girl and what not. According to Islamic Law and Pakistani Law two things
belong to the wife in case of divorce. One is the haq mehr which is
according to Nikahnama. The other thing are the gifts which are given to
the girl. 

Gift in Islamic Law are never taken back by the person gifting them.
According to Islam a person who takes the gift back is like a dog that
vomits and eats the vomit afterwards. So it is not reasonable for a
muslim to take the gifted items back from the girl when she is
divorced. 

Divorce is something not liked by Allah. Divorce is Halal but the most
unlikely thing in the Halal things. It is best that the husband and wife
compromise to live together once they are married unless they have no
other option then to leave each other.

If you have any query related with Divorce in Islamic Law or any other
issue related with Family laws you can contact
internationallawyerinfo@gmail.com

Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan (Golra)
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