SC declares bride’s jewellery and gifts off limits

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that gold ornaments and other items given to a bride at the time of marriage for her personal use are her exclusive property, and cannot be claimed by her husband or his relatives.

In a judgement authored by Justice Shakeel Ahmad, the court said that retaining such jewellery without authorisation amounts to unlawful deprivation of a wife’s property rights, and that she can seek recovery through proceedings before a family court. The ruling came in an appeal filed by Ghulam Habib against his wife, Shazia, in a dispute over the recovery of dowry articles.

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi heard the husband’s appeal against an Oct 27, 2025 Lahore High Court decision. That ruling had affirmed a family court decree directing that gold ornaments be returned to the wife and that maintenance be paid to her.

During the trial, the wife stated that her parents had given her 87 tolas of gold ornaments for her sole benefit. The Supreme Court noted that in social practice, jewellery presented to a bride is not merely ceremonial, but often serves as a form of financial protection and economic independence for a woman entering marriage.

The judgement said that property given to a woman at the time of marriage for her personal use, whether described as dowry, bridal gifts or personal belongings, vests absolutely in her. It added that the question of ownership depends on the intention behind the transfer and the bride’s exclusive entitlement to the property.

Referring to the law, the court said Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, reflects a deliberate recognition of women’s economic rights within the household. According to the judgement, the law gives family courts exclusive jurisdiction over matters including dissolution of marriage, dower, maintenance, child custody, dowry and the personal property of a wife.

The court further held that the phrase personal property and belongings of a wife includes jewellery, gold ornaments and bridal gifts. It said interpreting the law otherwise would reduce a woman’s proprietary rights to customary claims dependent on the husband or his family, contrary to the legal framework as well as constitutional principles of dignity, equality and protection of property.

“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,” Justice Ahmad stated in the judgement.

The Supreme Court also held that where a husband and mother-in-law jointly retain such ornaments, a recovery suit against both is maintainable before the family court. The appeal was dismissed.