Hands off bride’s jewellery, wedding gifts, Supreme Court says

• Rules husband, in-laws can’t claim ornaments gifted to bride; withholding them is ‘unlawful deprivation’
• Notes dowry constitutes women’s ‘financial security’
• Family courts empowered to order recovery of bridal property

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that gold ornaments gifted to a bride by her parents or relatives at the time of marriage for her exclusive use are her absolute property, declaring that neither her husband nor his family can legally claim them.

Retaining such jewellery amounts to the illegal deprivation of a wife’s proprietary rights, which is remediable through proceedings before a family court, Justice Shakeel Ahmad cautioned in a judgement.

The observation came on an appeal moved by Ghulam Habib against his wife, Shazia, relating to the recovery of dowry articles.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, took up the husband’s challenge to an Oct 27, 2025, Lahore High Court ruling. That decision upheld a family court decree requiring the return of gold ornaments and maintenance to his wife.

During the trial, the wife specifically asserted that her parents gifted her 87 tolas of gold ornaments for her exclusive benefit.

Highlighting societal realities, Justice Ahmad noted that jewellery gifted to a bride is not merely a ceremonial accessory but often constitutes financial security and economic autonomy for a woman entering marriage.

Such property, whether described as dowry, bridal gifts or personal belongings, remains the exclusive property of the bride, over which neither the husband nor the in-laws can claim dominion.

The judge emphasised it is a settled principle that any property given to a woman at the time of marriage for her personal use vests absolutely in her. Ownership is determined by the intention underlying the transfer and the exclusive entitlement of the bride, the judgement said.

“Any unauthorised retention, deprivation or misappropriation of such property by the husband or his family amounts to unlawful withholding of the wife’s proprietary rights and entitles her to seek recovery through lawful proceedings before the competent family court,” the judgement read.

The legislative scheme of Section 5 of the Family Courts Act of 1964 reflects a conscious, progressive recognition of women’s economic rights within the domestic sphere.

The statute confers exclusive jurisdiction upon family courts regarding the dissolution of marriage, dower, maintenance, child custody, dowry and the personal property of a wife.

The expression “personal property and belongings of a wife” encompasses jewellery, gold ornaments and bridal gifts. To hold otherwise would reduce proprietary entitlements to mere customary claims dependent on the husband or his family, contradicting the statutory framework and constitutional values of dignity, equality and property protection, the judgement said.

Where a husband and mother-in-law jointly withhold such ornaments, a recovery suit against both is fully maintainable before the family court, the ruling said, dismissing the appeal.

Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2026 ...