Who owns the car?

AMARA Waqas and her husband were married in 2015. Prior to her marriage, Ms Waqas had been a PAF officer. The marriage ended in January 2021. The husband retained control of the assets acquired during the marriage, including a Suzuki Cultus, dowry items that Ms Waqas had brought with her, and household items in the couple’s use. When Ms Waqas tried to request the return of these items, they were not provided to her; in particular, it was alleged that she had no share in the car because it was in her husband’s name. Amara Waqas, who had filed for khula, then turned to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). Earlier court orders had refused to grant her relief in respect of the property.

This is a very old story in Pakistan. Even when marriages are not being dissolved, the fact that property is usually in the husband’s name is a deterrent to wives’ being able to assert their rights or their worth within the marital relationship. Taking advantage of the traditional division of labour in most Pakistani marriages, it is common for husbands to exercise financial control over assets to make sure that all property acquired during the marriage is in their name. In cases of abusive relationships, or even ones in which relations between the spouses have broken down, the feeling that wives will have no right to property acquired during the marriage deters them from seeking dissolution. The prospect of having no financial support keeps women in marriages in which they are being harmed and may ultimately even be killed.

Ms Waqas’ case, however, may change all that to some extent. Her case was heard this year by the IHC. In court she asked for the retrieval of her share of the marital property acquired, in whole or in part, during the marriage (2015-2021). In particular, she argued that the Suzuki Cultus that they had bought during the marriage was partially hers because she had contributed to its purchase. Her requests were modest, showing the life of an ordinary Pakistani couple and their assets.

In his comprehensive decision Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani has provided hope to millions of Pakistani wives whose husbands retain everything if they dare file for khula. He referred to the religious concept of marriage as a partnership between husband and wife. Also, even though husbands are usually the financial maintainers of their wives, the latter provide many things that are not enumerated in monetary terms. These include management of the household, raising of children and provision of emotional support; in the case of working women, these same women may also be providing financial contributions to the marriage. He cited from Surah Baqarah, which directs husbands to “give them [a gift of] compensation — the wealthy according to his capability and the poor according to his capability” and that suitable compensation is the husband’s duty; he also cited another verse to establish that in Islam women are entitled to just compensation.

Fear of no financial support keeps women in bad marriages.

It seems that courts in Pakistan have not in the past established what just compensation should be beyond the haq meher or dower that is stated in the nikahnama of the couple. In fact, if marriage is described as a partnership then it follows that assets must also be disposed of equitably between the two parties. This principle and the concept of equitable distribution is used in many other Muslim countries, including Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkiye, where courts look beyond formal ownership.

The court loo­ked at the issue of the Suzuki Cu­­-ltus, which was the most valuable item in the dispute. Now, de-spite the fact that the car was in the husband’s name, the court looked at the fact that the seed money was provided by the wife (thus an actual financial contribution) and that the wife also provided domestic support to the husband. This led the court to hold that such title was not decisive and that the matter required reconsideration.

While this decision relates to the division of assets related to divorce, it affects marital relationships in Pakistan at large. This is because in millions of such relationships, men threaten their wives with divorce and thus financial destitution by noting that they get to keep everything from the house to the car because everything is ‘in their name’, and they expect the courts to uphold this.

The fact that the IHC has recognised the need to consider contributions beyond title should give these finan-cially abusive husbands pause, because ownership in name alone is not the only consideration.

The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.

rafia.zakaria@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, April 11th, 2026

if you want to get more information about this news then click on below link

More Detail