THE Supreme Court has delivered a simple but powerful reminder: dower is a wife’s right, not a favour from her husband and certainly not a tool to control her.

In a judgement on disputes arising from entries in the nikahnama, the court has made clear that mahr must be paid in good faith, at the agreed time and without conditions that humiliate or pressure a woman. A husband cannot say, in effect, that he will pay only if his wife ‘behaves’ or does not seek divorce. Such terms defeat the very purpose of dower.

The ruling matters because what should be a clear legal entitlement is too often dragged into bitter marital disputes, with women forced to spend years in court seeking what was promised to them at the time of marriage. The judgement also turns attention to a familiar source of complications: the nikahnama itself.

Too often, this important legal document is filled out casually, with columns left blank, vague descriptions of property and little effort made to ensure that both parties understand what has been written. Such carelessness becomes costly when disputes arise later.

The court has now told nikah registrars to record the terms carefully, particularly those concerning dower, property and the delegated right of divorce. Relevant entries must be explained before signatures or thumbprints are taken, while property given as dower should be described clearly enough to identify it. Union councils have also been told to train registrars, inspect records and act against those who fail to perform their duties.

These directions could prevent many disputes before they begin. A carelessly filled nikahnama can turn a straightforward promise into years of argument over what was agreed and what can actually be enforced. Proper documentation protects both parties, but for women it is especially important because dower is often one of the few financial rights expressly written into the marriage contract. The court is therefore right to insist that it be treated seriously from the start.

Its message is simple: marriage cannot become a bargain in which a woman receives her lawful entitlement only on terms set later by her husband. Nor should she have to spend years in litigation to obtain what was already promised. Mahr is hers. The law says so, the marriage contract records it, and the courts must enforce it.

Published in Dawn, September 24th, 2026