25/09/2026
Can a Father be Sued for Future Marriage Expenses?
I recently dealt with an interesting family law matter where a father was sued on behalf of his daughter by her mother (ex-wife), with the claim that the daughter was going to be married and that substantial funds were required for her marriage.
What initially appeared to be a straightforward family dispute raised an important legal question:
Can a father be made liable today for marriage expenses which have not yet been incurred and where the marriage itself has not yet taken place?
While examining the issue, I came across two important Pakistani judgments which provide an interesting perspective.
In Muhammad Riaz Ahmad v. Mst. Shaheen Akhtar and others, PLD 2023 Lahore 317, the Lahore High Court dealt with a case where the daughter had actually been married and her mother had incurred expenses on the marriage. The father had also been paying maintenance during the daughter's minority.
The Lahore High Court held that the concept of maintenance of an unmarried daughter is not confined merely to food, clothing and residence. It held that a Muslim father has an obligation to meet the reasonable marriage expenses of his unmarried daughter, having regard to his financial status.
The Court went further and observed, in substance, that the responsibility of the father to maintain his unmarried daughter includes the responsibility to ensure that she is properly married and that reasonable marriage expenses may therefore fall within that obligation.
That judgment, however, involved an important factual circumstance: the daughter had actually been married and the mother had actually incurred the expenditure.
The legal position was subsequently considered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Naseem Mai and another v. Malik Muhammad Shah Aalam and others, CPLA No.2872-L of 2022, decided on 7 July 2025 and reported as PLD 2026 SC 122.
The Supreme Court drew a significant line between a concrete obligation and a speculative future claim.
The August Apex Court observed that although a father holds an important responsibility towards his children, the law must distinguish between what may be morally desirable and what is judicially enforceable.
The Court held that the Family Courts Act recognizes specific categories of family claims but does not create a general statutory obligation to pay prospective or indefinite marriage expenses.
The Supreme Court's reasoning was particularly significant. A claim for marriage expenses may arise where the expenses are “immediate” and “certain” and are unjustly denied, particularly where a customary contribution is due at the time of an actual engagement or marriage. But the law does not create an obligation upon a father to pay advance or indefinite marriage expenses where the claim remains speculative and indeterminate.
The Court concluded that courts grant relief on the basis of existing rights and actual infringement, rather than hypothetical future causes of action. It held the claim before it to be premature and not maintainable, while preserving the petitioners' right to approach the competent court when the cause of action actually arose.
This distinction becomes particularly important in a case where:
• the daughter has not yet married;
• no actual marriage expenditure has been incurred;
• the proposed marriage arrangements are uncertain; and
• the claim is essentially for funds to be provided today for a marriage that may take place in the future.
There is also an interesting question where the proposed marriage has been arranged without the father's consultation or participation. The father may undoubtedly have legal responsibilities towards his daughter, but does his biological relationship automatically make him financially liable for every expenditure proposed by others for a marriage in which he was neither consulted nor involved?
In my view, that question cannot be answered merely by reference to social expectations. It requires examination of the precise legal obligation, the stage at which the marriage has reached, the actual expenditure incurred, the evidence supporting the amount claimed and the financial circumstances of the father.
The contrast between PLD 2023 Lahore 317 and PLD 2026 SC 122 is therefore quite instructive.
The former recognises reasonable marriage expenses as part of a father's responsibility in an appropriate case.
The latter reminds us that such responsibility cannot automatically be converted into a decree for an uncertain and future expenditure before the cause of action has crystalized.
Ultimately, the question is not simply whether a father should help his daughter marry.
The legal question is:
What obligation has actually accrued, what expenditure has actually been incurred, what has been proved, and what amount is presently enforceable in law?
That distinction between a moral expectation and an enforceable legal obligation is, in my view, one of the most important aspects of this developing area of family law in Pakistan.
Can a Father be Sued for Future Marriage Expenses? I recently dealt with an interesting family law matter where a father was sued on behalf of his daughter by her mother (ex-wife), claiming that the daughter was about to be married and that funds were required for her marriage. The case raised an im...
