The Lahore High Court has upheld a family court’s decree of khula, declaring that once a woman expresses extreme aversion toward her husband and the husband also refuses reconciliation, no court can lawfully compel the continuation of such a marriage.
The petitioner had challenged the family court’s order it passed on September 24, 2025, through which the wife’s suit for dissolution of marriage by way of khula had been decreed. The husband alleged that the marriage was void from the outset, claiming that the woman had concealed her previous marriages and therefore the decree of khula could not stand. He insisted that unless the alleged earlier marriage was resolved, the existing nikah was invalid.
However, the court found no substance in the husband’s allegations. Justice Arshad noted that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence-such as certified copies of prior nikahnamas or any official record-establishing that the woman remained legally bound in any previous marriage.
LHC’s Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad dismissed the husband’s constitutional petition, ruling that the family court’s order suffered from no illegality or jurisdictional defect.
“Once both parties have categorically refused reconciliation, the very basis of matrimonial life, i.e., mutual willingness, companionship, and harmony, has collapsed”, Justice Arshad observed.
“A court of law is not expected to keep alive a matrimonial tie that both spouses have rejected. The institution of marriage in Islam is based on tranquility, affection, and mercy. When these essential elements are absent, and when the wife asserts extreme aversion while the husband is also unwilling to keep her, compelling continuation of such a union would amount to perpetuating emotional and psychological hardship,” Justice Arshad further observed.
The court made clear that no principle of Islamic law, statutory law, or equity permits forcing a wife to remain in a marriage she no longer wishes to continue, particularly when the husband also expresses unwillingness to live with her. “To insist on the continuation of such a marriage would not only defeat the objectives of matrimonial life but would also contradict Islamic jurisprudence, which emphasizes ease, justice, and prevention of harm”.
The court held that a bare allegation, unsupported by evidence, is insufficient to negate the strong presumption of validity attached to an admitted marriage. Until a competent court declares a nikah void, it remains legally operative.
The court further observed that the husband’s separate declaratory suit challenging the nikahnama does not restrict or bar the family court from adjudicating upon the wife’s khula suit. “As long as the subsistence of marriage stands on record, the family court is empowered to dissolve it under Islamic and statutory principles”.
Justice Arshad reaffirmed the landmark legal principle laid down in the famed Khurshid Bibi judgment, where the superior courts held that a wife’s categorical statement of hatred or inability to live with her husband within the limits ordained by Allah constitutes sufficient ground for khula.
The judge emphasized that forcing a woman to remain in a marriage she finds unbearable violates both Islamic injunctions and the principles of justice. When a wife expresses intense aversion, and the husband himself refuses reconciliation, the foundation of marital harmony collapses entirely.
During proceedings before the family court, the wife recorded an unequivocal statement that she had developed a strong hatred toward the husband and could no longer continue marital life. Significantly, the husband had also informed the court that he had no desire to resume the marital relationship.
The high court observed that once both spouses express their unwillingness to reconcile, the law does not recognize any rationale for sustaining such a relationship. Islamic jurisprudence, the judge noted, is oriented toward ease, fairness, and the prevention of emotional harm.
LHC observed that the family court has rightly passed an order by dissolving the marriage based on Khula. Finding no procedural irregularity or misapplication of law, the LHC dismissed the constitutional petition in limine, terming it meritless.