Court says judges must examine a relationship’s origins and whether a woman’s consent was freely given
LAHORE:
The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday laid down important legal principles for lower courts adjudicating disputed love marriage cases, ruling that a registered nikahnama or even a woman’s earlier harassment petition cannot, by themselves, conclusively establish a valid marriage where allegations of abduction, coercion or forced marriage are raised.
The court held that judges must go beyond documentary evidence and determine whether the woman’s consent was free, voluntary and completely free from coercion. It directed trial courts to examine how the alleged relationship originated, whether the parties genuinely knew each other and whether the circumstances supported a claim of consensual marriage.
The LHC further ruled that where the parties are strangers from different localities, courts are under a legal obligation to inquire into the genesis of the alleged love relationship before accepting a plea of consensual marriage.
Justice Anwaar Hussain of the LHC’s Bahawalpur Bench issued the ruling while dismissing a constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Jamil and upholding an appellate court’s judgment declaring the disputed marriage invalid after finding it had not been proven to be the result of the woman’s free and voluntary consent.
The case arose from a suit for takzeeb-e-nikah (jactitation of marriage) filed by a woman, who maintained that she had been abducted and forced into marriage against her will.
Jamil, however, contended that the parties had developed a consensual relationship, voluntarily eloped and entered into a love marriage. He also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, and both matters were heard together.
Also Read: Lahore court grants five-day physical remand of four in alleged foreign women assault case
On December 7, 2023, the trial court dismissed the woman’s suit after holding that the marriage had been established through the production of a registered nikahnama. It also observed that the parties belonged to the same caste and were previously acquainted, treating the dispute as one concerning dissolution of marriage rather than the validity of the marriage itself.
However, the appellate court overturned that decision on August 27, 2025, ruling that the alleged marriage had not been proven to be the result of the woman’s free and voluntary consent, and decreed her suit.
Before the LHC, Jamil’s counsel argued that the registered nikahnama and the woman’s earlier harassment petition sufficiently established the marriage and sought restoration of the trial court’s judgment.
Counsel for the respondent argued that the central issue was not the execution of the nikahnama, but whether the woman had freely consented to the marriage. He submitted that her family had initiated criminal proceedings and that she later recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that she had been abducted and forcibly married.
Framing the legal question, the LHC observed that the principal issue was the proper judicial approach to assessing evidence in cases where one party relied on an alleged love marriage while the other claimed abduction, coercion or forced marriage.
The judgment held that although documentary evidence, including a registered nikahnama or a harassment petition, may initially lend credibility to a marriage claim, courts cannot confine their inquiry to such documents when the very foundation of the marriage is challenged on the basis of lack of free consent. Instead, judges must examine the entire chain of surrounding circumstances before and after the alleged nikah.
Applying that principle, the court noted that although the petitioner consistently claimed the parties had shared a consensual relationship before marriage, the record contained no convincing evidence explaining how that relationship began or developed.
The judgment observed that the parties were neither relatives, neighbours, classmates nor colleagues, nor did they belong to the same social circle. They lived in different localities more than 100 kilometres apart, making the mere fact that they belonged to the same caste legally insignificant.
The court held that where parties are complete strangers, it is essential to determine how the alleged relationship came into existence and ultimately developed into a decision to marry against the wishes of the woman’s family.
While clarifying that the law does not require parties to produce call records, social media conversations, photographs or other electronic evidence to prove a relationship, the court held that the complete absence of any explanation regarding the genesis of the relationship substantially weakens a claim of consensual love marriage.
The LHC also attached significance to the woman’s conduct following the alleged marriage. It observed that although her earlier harassment petition was relevant evidence, it could not be treated as conclusive in isolation.
Its evidentiary value had to be assessed alongside subsequent events, including recovery proceedings initiated by her family, criminal cases registered after her disappearance, and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which she stated that she had been abducted and forced into marriage.
The court further clarified that where a woman asserts that no valid marriage ever came into existence because her consent was not free and voluntary, a suit for takzeeb-e-nikah should not ordinarily be converted into proceedings for dissolution of marriage.
Finding that the appellate court had properly appreciated the evidence and committed no misreading, non-reading, illegality or jurisdictional error, the LHC dismissed the constitutional petition and upheld the appellate court’s decree.
