The Supreme Court has ruled that gold jewellery and other gifts presented to a bride by her parents or relatives at the time of marriage are her exclusive property and cannot be claimed or retained by her husband or his family.

In a detailed judgment, Justice Shakeel Ahmad observed that any unauthorized retention of such property amounts to an unlawful deprivation of a woman’s proprietary rights and can be challenged before a family court.

The ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by Ghulam Habib against his wife, Shazia, in a case concerning the recovery of dowry articles. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi upheld the Lahore High Court’s October 27, 2025, decision, which had affirmed a family court order directing the husband to return gold ornaments and pay maintenance.

During the proceedings, the wife stated that her parents had gifted her 87 tolas of gold jewellery solely for her personal use.

The judgment emphasized that jewellery given to a bride is more than a ceremonial gift, describing it as an important source of financial security and economic independence for women entering marriage.

The court clarified that property gifted to a woman at the time of marriage—whether described as dowry, bridal gifts, or personal belongings—remains her absolute property. Neither the husband nor his relatives acquire any legal ownership or control over it.

The judgment further stated that ownership depends on the intention behind the gift, which is made exclusively for the bride’s benefit. Therefore, any unauthorized possession, withholding, or misappropriation of such property by the husband or his family violates her legal rights and entitles her to seek recovery through the competent family court.

Referring to Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the Supreme Court noted that the law grants family courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving marriage dissolution, dower, maintenance, child custody, dowry, and a wife’s personal property.

The court also clarified that the term “personal property and belongings of a wife” includes gold jewellery, bridal gifts, and other valuables received at the time of marriage. Interpreting the law otherwise, the judgment said, would undermine women’s property rights and conflict with constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and protection of property.

The Supreme Court also held that where both the husband and mother-in-law jointly retain a woman’s jewellery or other personal property, a recovery suit against both is legally maintainable before a family court, and dismissed the husband’s appeal.