29/04/2026
Justice Ayesha Malik’s marriage dissolution ruling as milestone for women’s rights.
Supreme Court Justice Ayesha A. Malik’s landmark ruling that recognises psychological abuse as cruelty and a valid ground for marriage dissolution, calling it a “progressive step” towards gender-sensitive justice.
The decision marked “a significant milestone in safeguarding women’s dignity and well-being within marital relationships.”
Justice Malik, in a 17-page judgment issued on October 25, overturned a Peshawar High Court (PHC) decision that had denied a woman’s request for dissolution of marriage and instead granted her Khula without her consent. The Supreme Court judge ruled that mental and emotional abuse constitutes cruelty under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (DMMA), and therefore provides legal grounds for ending a marriage.
“The court’s acknowledgement of emotional and psychological cruelty as equally serious as physical abuse strengthens the jurisprudence of women’s right to self-determination,” Azhar said, adding that it also ensures women’s mental and emotional health is considered in family court proceedings.
The judgment’s emphasis on using gender-sensitive language and eliminating patriarchal reasoning from judicial discourse, describing it as vital to ensuring fairness and equality.
Justice Malik’s ruling addressed a case in which a woman sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty, non-payment of maintenance, and her husband taking a second wife. The PHC had earlier dismissed her petition.
Justice Malik stated that a woman can seek dissolution of marriage if she successfully establishes any of the statutory grounds, including cruelty, disappearance of the husband, failure to provide maintenance, imprisonment, impotence, insanity, or inequitable treatment in a polygamous marriage.
She explained that cruelty may range from physical assault to mental or emotional abuse, interference with a woman’s property or religion, or inequitable treatment after a second marriage. “In a marriage, cruelty can also be any act that makes it impossible for the wife to live with dignity and security within the marital home,” she wrote.
Justice Malik criticised the family court for demanding documentary or medical evidence to prove abuse, observing that “abuse within the marital home is often a bedroom crime committed in private for which there are no witnesses.” She said such crimes frequently remain unreported due to “socio-cultural barriers, economic dependency and lack of information.”
The judgment also faulted the PHC for conflating Khula and dissolution, clarifying that Khula is a separate legal remedy that cannot be imposed without a woman’s consent. She reaffirmed that Khula is “an independent and inalienable right of a woman, not contingent upon the husband’s consent.”
Justice Malik further criticised the patriarchal language used by lower courts in referring to the petitioner as a “disobedient wife” or “self-deserted lady,” warning that such terms “stigmatised women and trivialised abuse.”
“When judgments rely on stereotypes or excuse unlawful conduct, they perpetuate inequality and shape social attitudes in ways that deny women dignity, fairness, and justice,” she wrote.
Calling for courts to apply a “gender lens” in family law cases, Justice Malik said this approach helps judges understand the social realities and forms of harm women face. “The law demands that women’s choices, words, and rights be respected as a matter of principle, not presumption,” she concluded.
The verdict aligned with both constitutional and Islamic principles of justice and equality, adding that it set a precedent for courts to protect women’s autonomy and mental well-being.
