The Sindh High Court has sent a family case back for fresh decision, holding that a wife's admission in cross-examination that she obtained khula must be examined — with the actual decree — before any court decides dower or maintenance.

Draft pending advocate review. This guide is awaiting final review by Advocate Muhammad Iqbal Khan.

A wife told the family court, under cross-examination, that she had already obtained khula. Both lower courts decided her dower and maintenance as if that statement had never been made. On 2 November 2026, the Sindh High Court sent the case back: an admission in cross-examination is real evidence, and no court can decide dower and maintenance without first finding out whether the marriage ended in khula, and on what terms.

Case reference: C.P. No. S-1258 of 2023, Zain Arshad Khan v. Mst. Raeesa Usmani and others, High Court of Sindh at Karachi, single bench of Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, decided 2 November 2026. It is listed on the Sindh High Court's official caselaw website (caselaw.shc.gov.pk) as a family matter, with no law-report citation and not marked approved for reporting.

What happened in the case

The parties married on 15 January 2017, with dower of Rs. 125,000 unpaid. The wife said her husband expelled her from the home on 20 July 2020 and then pronounced divorce. She sued in Karachi East (Family Suit No. 275 of 2021) for maintenance, the unpaid dower and dowry articles.

On 29 August 2022 the family court awarded the wife past maintenance of Rs. 6,000 per month from 20 July 2020 until her legal entitlement, including iddat; Rs. 10,000 per month for the minor child with a 10 percent annual increase; and the Rs. 125,000 dower. The appellate court (Family Appeal No. 247 of 2022, 25 September 2023) maintained the dower award and modified the maintenance amount.

The husband then approached the High Court: in cross-examination, the wife herself had admitted she had obtained khula. If the marriage had ended by khula, the dower and maintenance could not be decided as the courts below had decided them — yet neither court had examined that admission at all.

What the High Court held

Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi allowed the petition on the dower and the wife's maintenance, set aside the appellate judgment on those two points, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, on four points.

First, an admission in cross-examination is evidence. It cannot be brushed aside without examining its context, value and legal effect. The appellate court observed that nothing on record established khula — but it never engaged with the admission itself, on the record at page 125 of the petition.

Second, saying "I got khula" is not the same as proving khula. A mere assertion, without examining the decree or proceedings, may not by itself determine how the marriage ended. The court must ascertain whether a khula decree was actually passed, its terms, and what follows — particularly for the dower and the period for which maintenance may lawfully be claimed.

Third, the trial court decided maintenance on the wrong footing. It awarded maintenance on the basis that the marriage had ended by divorce, without examining the plea that it had ended by khula. That gap had to be cured by a fresh, reasoned finding.

Fourth, the child's maintenance was left untouched. A father's obligation to maintain his minor child, according to his means and the child's needs, cannot be avoided by claiming limited income. Those findings stand, and the appellate court must decide the remanded issues expeditiously, preferably within two months.

Why khula changes the money questions

Whether a marriage ended by talaq or by khula changes what money is payable. In khula, the wife generally returns or surrenders the dower as the court directs; in a talaq, she ordinarily keeps it in full. A court that awards the entire dower without first deciding how the marriage ended may award money that is not due — or deny money that is due.

The same applies to maintenance: a wife is entitled to it during the marriage and through iddat, but the date the marriage ended fixes the claimable period. Child maintenance is different — it belongs to the child and cannot be given up by parental agreement. The Supreme Court's 2026 shiqaq ruling adds that dower is not automatically forfeited; entitlement is determined on the facts of each case, starting with the actual decree.

What this means for your case

For wives: keep the khula decree and the full record of the proceedings safe, and produce them in any later claim for dower or maintenance. A statement in cross-examination can be used by the other side — the decree itself, with its date and terms, settles the question.

For husbands: if the wife obtained khula, say so in the written statement, point the court to the admission and the decree, and ask for a specific finding. Here the husband raised the point at every stage, yet the case still went back because no court below had recorded a finding on it.

The High Court in constitutional jurisdiction is not a second appeal: it intervenes where material evidence bearing directly on the dispute was not considered at all.

Checklist: if khula comes up in your dower or maintenance case

  • Get a certified copy of the khula decree — its date fixes when the marriage ended.
  • Check what the decree says about dower: returned, waived, or left to be decided.
  • Work out maintenance from dissolution through iddat — claim, or concede, nothing beyond it.
  • Keep child maintenance separate: it continues regardless.
  • If the other side admits khula in cross-examination, point the court to the exact deposition page and ask for a finding.

Frequently asked questions

Does obtaining khula mean the wife loses her dower?

Not automatically. In khula the wife generally returns the dower as the court directs, but entitlement is decided on the facts and the decree's terms.

Can a wife claim maintenance after khula?

Yes, for the iddat period: maintenance is payable during the marriage and through iddat, and the khula decree's date fixes when that period starts.

Is a statement in cross-examination binding evidence?

An admission in cross-examination is relevant evidence the court must examine. Alone, it is not conclusive proof of khula; the court should also look at the decree and proceedings.

What happens now in this case?

The appellate court must decide the dower and the wife's maintenance afresh, after hearing both sides and examining the record. The findings on the minor's maintenance stand, and the decision should come preferably within two months. Execution is not automatically suspended.

Related guides

Need guidance on your situation? If khula, dower or maintenance is disputed in your case, contact us to book a confidential consultation.

Common questions

Not automatically. In khula the wife generally returns or surrenders the dower as the court directs, but entitlement is decided on the facts and the terms of the decree — the Supreme Court's 2026 shiqaq ruling confirms dower is not forfeited as a matter of course. The Sindh High Court's point is that the court must look at the actual khula decree before deciding.

Yes, for the iddat period. Maintenance is payable during the marriage and through iddat; the date of the khula decree fixes when that period starts. Child maintenance is separate and continues regardless of the khula.

An admission in cross-examination is relevant evidence that the court must examine — its context, value and legal effect. It is not, by itself, conclusive proof of khula; the court should also look at the decree and the proceedings before deciding what follows from it.

The matter goes back to the appellate court for a fresh decision on the dower and the wife's maintenance only, after hearing both sides and examining the record — including the alleged admission and, if available, the khula decree. The findings on the minor's maintenance stand, and the appellate court should decide preferably within two months. The execution proceedings are not automatically suspended by the High Court's order.

Related guides

Need guidance on your matter? Book a Consultation

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice for your specific matter. Online contact does not create an advocate–client relationship.