Haq mehr in gold in Pakistan: the gold or today's price

Key points

• Where a decree gives two ways to satisfy it, the person who won it chooses: "the decree-holder retains the liberty to exercise her choice" (para 10).
• Gold that is not returned can be paid for at today's price: an executing court "can direct payment of the current market value of gold ornaments if their return is not possible", a rule an earlier three-member bench of the Supreme Court had settled (para 11).
• Adding the cash figure to her execution petition, after the husband objected, did not give up the gold: it was "merely an addition of Rs. 100,000/-" (para 10).
• Courts read the decree with the nikahnama behind it: "the Court must give effect to the true intent underlying the decree and the contract from which it flows" (para 12).
• The judgment does not say whether she got the gold back or its price, or what that price was.

Haq mehr in gold: the short answer

If the haq mehr in a nikahnama includes gold and a court decrees it, the gold is owed as gold. In this 2025 case the decree gave the wife seven tolas of gold or Rs. 100,000; the Supreme Court said the choice between them was hers, and that if the gold is not returned a court can order its current market value.

People search this as haq mehr in gold, can gold be given as mahr, how is haq mehr calculated and haq mehr after divorce. The Supreme Court's judgment of 20 August 2025 answers the gold question. For what haq mehr is, when it is due and whether it can be forgiven, see FAI Media's haq mehr guide.

Her gold, taken back: what happened

The wife filed a family suit for recovery of dower, dowry articles and maintenance of her minor child. On 17 December 2016 the Family Judge, Taxila decreed the dower: "she is entitled to recover of gold ornaments weighing seven tolas or in alternative amount of Rs. 100,000" (para 2).

The decree recorded the prompt dower of Rs. 100,000 and noted column 15 of the nikahnama, which mentioned seven tolas of gold "which had initially been given to Respondent No.1 but was later taken back by the petitioner" (para 2). Appeals by both sides were dismissed on 28 March 2017, because no appeal lies against a dower decree of up to Rs. 100,000 (para 3).

The courts below: one lakh, or the gold?

In execution, the Family Court ordered on 10 July 2018 "the recovery of seven (07) tolas of gold or its current market value" (para 4). The husband's revision was accepted on 5 November 2018: the revisional court held the gold was "in fact given in lieu of Rs. 100,000" and that she "was not entitled to the prevailing market value but only to the fixed sum of Rs. 100,000" (para 5). On 20 November 2024 the Lahore High Court set that aside, "upholding the entitlement of Respondent No.1 to either the recovery of seven (07) tolas of gold or its current market value" (para 6). The husband went to the Supreme Court.

We checked it in FAI Legal

The judgment is on FAI Legal's Judgment Search, marked as a citation from the court record, with every paragraph open in the judgment reader. The paragraphs quoted on this page are paras 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance and the Family Courts Act's schedule are from FAI's Statute Search. We cite the judgment by the court's own case number and date, and name none of the parties.

Supreme Court, 2025: her choice, and today's price

The Supreme Court found "no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the High Court". It held "the settled principle that, where a Decree expressly affords alternate modes of satisfaction, the decree-holder retains the liberty to exercise her choice". The husband argued that she had added Rs. 100,000 to her execution petition and so accepted the cash; the Court said the amendment was "merely an addition of Rs. 100,000/-" made on his objection, "without in any way deleting, relinquishing or substituting the original stipulation of seven (07) tolas of gold" (para 10).

It relied on an earlier three-member bench, which "has settled that an executing court can direct payment of the current market value of gold ornaments if their return is not possible", quoting it: "payment of price of gold ornaments at the prevalent market rate, in case the golden ornaments are not returned, is fully justified" (para 11). It added that "the Court must give effect to the true intent underlying the decree and the contract from which it flows" (para 12), and the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused (para 13).

The catch: it turns on what is written

This decree itself offered two options, and the nikahnama itself recorded the gold. The Court read them together, giving effect to "the true intent underlying the decree and the contract from which it flows" (para 12). The judgment does not turn a haq mehr written only in rupees into gold.

Our practical advice before a nikah: if the haq mehr includes gold, write it in the nikahnama clearly, with its weight in tolas and whether it was handed over at the nikah, and keep a copy of the nikahnama and photos or receipts of the jewellery. Where the nikahnama does not say how the dower is to be paid, section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance treats the whole of it as payable on demand, and a claim for dower goes to the Family Court.

Find rulings like this on FAI Legal

FAI Legal is a website: open failegal.site in your phone's browser, there is nothing to download. Read this judgment in full on Judgment Search, read section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance in Statute Search, or ask your own question about haq mehr, dowry or the nikahnama, with answers from Pakistan's laws and judgments. Start free.

The case at a glance

Facts

The wife's suit for dower was decreed for seven tolas of gold or, in the alternative, Rs. 100,000; the gold, recorded in column 15 of the nikahnama, had been given to her and taken back by the husband (para 2). In execution the court ordered the gold or its current market value; the revisional court limited her to Rs. 100,000; the Lahore High Court restored the executing court's order (paras 4 to 6).

The question

Whether a decree for seven tolas of gold or, in the alternative, Rs. 100,000 limits recovery to the fixed sum, or allows the current market value of the gold when it is not returned (paras 2 and 7 to 9).

What the Court held

Where a decree affords alternate modes of satisfaction, the decree-holder chooses; an executing court can direct payment of the current market value of gold ornaments if they are not returned; the wife's amendment adding Rs. 100,000 did not give up the gold. Petition dismissed, leave refused (paras 10, 11 and 13).

Why

The settled principle of decree-holder's choice, an earlier three-member bench on the market value of gold ornaments, the limited supervisory role of constitutional courts over concurrent findings, and the duty to give effect to the true intent of the decree and the contract it flows from (paras 10 to 12).

Limits

A leave-refusing judgment of two judges on one decree that itself offered gold or cash. It does not convert a cash-only dower into gold, and it does not say what the gold was worth or whether it was paid.

The law it relies on

What this does not mean

• It does not turn a haq mehr written only in rupees into gold. Here the decree itself offered seven tolas of gold or Rs. 100,000, and the nikahnama recorded the gold (para 2).
• It does not say what the gold was worth, or that she was paid: the judgment gives no price and does not say whether the gold was returned.
• It is a judgment refusing leave to appeal: the Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's judgment (paras 10 and 13).
• The market-value rule is not new: the Court applied what an earlier three-member bench had settled (para 11).
• The reel's opening scene, a husband snapping the jewellery box shut and offering one lakh, is a drawing of the common claim, not the case's own words.

Questions people ask

Sources

• A v. B (names withheld), Civil Petition No. 74 of 2025 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 20 August 2025)
  A decree for seven tolas of gold or Rs. 100,000: the decree-holder chooses, and an executing court can order the current market value of gold ornaments that are not returned.
• Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, Section 10 text checked in FAI Statute Search, 6 November 2026 Pakistan Code
• Family Courts Act, 1964 (as it applies in the Punjab), Schedule text checked in FAI Statute Search, 6 November 2026

Every quote and section above is traced to the full judgment or statute text by an automatic check that runs on every update.

What the reel says