LHC restores decree enforcing matrimonial settlement

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has reinstated a trial court decree enforcing a matrimonial settlement, holding that agreements meant to secure maintenance and residence for a wife and child are binding and cannot be set aside on unsupported claims of undue influence.

Justice Raheel Kamran issued the ruling on a civil revision petition filed by Sanam Shahzadi against Muhammad Anwar. The case arose from a suit filed by the woman seeking recovery of Rs25 million as compensation for breach of a compromise agreement executed between the spouses on Oct 7, 2010.

According to the case record cited in the judgement, Sanam said she married Anwar in September 2009 and the couple had a son, Noorullah, in June 2010. She alleged that disputes began after her husband resumed relations with another woman whom he had previously divorced, which led her to leave the matrimonial home and start living with her parents.

Terms of the settlement

The judgement said elders and relatives from both families later intervened and arranged a written settlement. Under that agreement, the husband undertook to pay Rs2,000 per month in maintenance, transfer five marlas of land to the minor son, and build a house on that land within three months at a minimum cost of Rs1.3 million.

The settlement also provided that if those obligations were not fulfilled, the husband would be liable to pay Rs25 million as penalty or compensation.

The husband contested the suit and also sought cancellation of the agreement, arguing that he had been compelled under undue influence to accept one-sided terms during reconciliation proceedings. However, Justice Kamran noted that the respondent had acknowledged buying the stamp paper for the agreement and taking part in reconciliation efforts through elders and relatives.

The court held that once the execution of the document and the surrounding circumstances had largely been admitted, the burden shifted to the husband to establish undue influence through convincing evidence. Referring to that plea, the judge said that “Mere assertion that the petitioner’s relatives or respectables compelled him to accept unilateral terms was not sufficient to defeat a written document.”

The judgement further noted that the agreement itself recorded that it had been executed without coercion or compulsion and with free consent before witnesses.

Court observations

According to the verdict, the respondent’s father had already transferred five marlas of land to the minor son through a gift mutation before the agreement was formally reduced to writing.

Justice Kamran observed that courts generally favour bona fide family settlements, particularly those intended to resolve matrimonial disputes and protect the interests of wives and children. He also rejected the husband’s contention that the wife was required to resume permanent cohabitation before he became bound to perform his obligations under the settlement.

The judge also disagreed with the appellate court’s view that the agreement had become unenforceable because the woman was not physically present at the reconciliation meeting and was not a signatory to the document.“"In our social context, particularly in matters of matrimonial reconciliation, it is not uncommon that elders or male relatives of the wife participate in such deliberations on her behalf,” the judgement observed.

Allowing the petition, the high court set aside the 2017 appellate court judgement and restored the 2016 decree passed by the trial court.

The court further ruled that, because of substantial depreciation in the value of money since 2011, the woman would be entitled to recover the equivalent value of Rs25 million either on the basis of the prevailing US dollar exchange rate or the current market price of gold at the time of realisation.