Major changes are under way in Pakistani divorce law.

The first change concerns women’s ability to obtain divorces without financial penalty.

On October 7, 2026, in two cases in which women sought divorces on the ground of cruelty but failed to prove it, the Supreme Court of Pakistan authorized divorce on the separate and distinct ground of shiqaq – serious and continuing marital discord – under a residuary provision of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. Mst. Zainab Bibi v. Muhammad Waseem; Mst. Iram Naz Begum v. Fazal Khaliq.

The courts below had dissolved the marriages on the basis of khula, an Islamic legal process whereby a wife divorces her husband but forfeits her right to claim maintenance, dower and recovery of dowry articles. However, neither of the wives in the cases before the Court had consented to a khula divorce.

The Supreme Court held that the Family Courts had committed an error of law by converting the petitioners’ claims for dissolution on the ground of cruelty into decrees of khula without obtaining their clear and voluntary consent or election. But because the record established a condition of shiqaq, and since reconciliation efforts had failed, the Court held that the marriages were liable to dissolution on the ground of shiqaq under Section 2(ix) of the 1939 Act rather than on the basis of khula.

The judgment further held that directions requiring the petitioners to return, surrender or waive their dower merely as a consequence of khula should be set aside, and that neither spouse should be judicially deprived of a lawful right or burdened with a stigma without a foundation in law and evidence. Their entitlement to dower would instead be determined in accordance with the 1939 Act and the findings otherwise sustainable on the record.

The second change concerns the economic consequences of divorce.

Pakistan has operated under a separate property system. Upon a divorce, assets that were acquired during the marriage belong to whoever holds the title. There has been no recognition of any right to a sharing of marital property unless an asset is placed in joint name. Spousal support is minimal.

But last year the Islamabad High Court issued a landmark judgment, Mst. Amara Waqas v. Muhammad Waqas Rasheed, holding that wives have a legal right to property accumulated during marriage under Islamic family law.

The Court acknowledged that it was the settled position under Pakistani law that, upon a divorce, a wife has no automatic legal right to share in her husband’s assets by virtue of the marital relationship alone, and that her statutory financial rights are confined to the enforcement of dower (mahar), spousal maintenance but only during the iddat period of about 3 months, and the recovery of dowry or bridal gifts.

Justice Kayani explained that normally a proprietary claim to assets in the husband’s name required proof of gift, contribution, partnership, or trust. Nonetheless, having reviewed both Islamic and common law jurisprudence, he held that the principles of fairness require that a wife must share in the matrimonial property in addition to her other financial rights.

Justice Kayani invoked the classical Islamic legal doctrine of partnership (shariqah), noting that where both spouses contribute to the acquisition of property, shared ownership may be recognized. He also referenced the view of contemporary Islamic scholars that a wife’s domestic and managerial labor constitutes indirect participation in wealth accumulation, potentially supporting a partnership-based claim. He drew on Quranic verses to establish the principle that Islamic law would not countenance a husband exploiting the silence of explicit injunctions on matrimonial property division to enrich himself at his wife’s expense.

In addition, the Court invoked the English law doctrine of constructive trusts, holding that a mutual intention that both spouses will have a beneficial interest in an asset acquired during marriage may be inferred from conduct — including financial contribution, domestic labor, and childcare — rather than requiring an express agreement.

The Court held that a wife’s contribution to a matrimonial asset may consist precisely in maintaining the home and raising children, thereby enabling the husband to earn and acquire property.

It is too soon to determine the impact of the Islamabad High Court’s decision. The Court asked the legislature to enact legislation in accordance with its decision, which has not (yet) been accomplished.