LHC questions delay in dowry dispute case

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has questioned the prolonged litigation in a dowry dispute, with Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani asking how long a woman should continue to face hardship after the breakdown of her marriage.

Hearing a petition filed by Muhammad Arshad, a resident of Depalpur, Justice Kayani expressed concern over the delay in proceedings linked to a family court case involving dowry articles and child expenses. "How much more humiliation does a woman have to face? How much more punishment do you want to give her?" he asked.

The petition before the high court sought to stop proceedings in the family court, where the woman had filed her claim regarding dowry items as well as expenses for the child.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court had started proceedings without first receiving their written reply, and requested the LHC to intervene by staying the matter.

During the hearing, Justice Kayani told the lawyer that, having accepted a fee, it was the counsel’s responsibility to help bring the dispute to a resolution.

The judge also raised broader questions about the nature of such disputes after the end of a marriage. He asked the parties what the position would be if the dowry articles were returned to the husband instead, and what the situation would have been if the husband himself had filed the claim.

Justice Kayani further questioned whether, once a marriage had ended, the return of dowry articles should not be a simple matter.

The court also pointed to wider delays in the legal system, observing that under ordinary circumstances a case of this kind could take as long as six years to come up for hearing. "Think about what would happen to the woman's belongings in that time," it was pointed out.

According to the petitioner’s lawyer, the couple had married in 2013 but separated soon afterwards.

Petition challenges family court proceedings

The case reached the LHC through a petition seeking to halt the trial court process. The petitioner maintained that proceedings had moved forward before his side had submitted a written response.

In response, the court’s observations focused not only on the procedural objection raised by the petitioner but also on the impact of prolonged litigation on the woman involved in the dispute. Justice Kayani’s remarks underscored concern over the time such cases can take and the consequences of delay in matters relating to dowry property and child-related expenses.

The hearing highlighted both the immediate dispute between the parties and the court’s concern over how family litigation can continue for years after a marriage has already ended.