LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has restored a trial court decree enforcing a matrimonial settlement, observing that agreements aimed at securing maintenance and residence for a wife and child carry binding force and cannot be discarded on unsubstantiated allegations of undue influence.
Justice Raheel Kamran announced the judgement on a civil revision petition filed by Sanam Shahzadi against Muhammad Anwar.
Sanam had filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs25 million as compensation for breach of a compromise agreement executed between the spouses on Oct 7, 2010.
The woman stated that she married Anwar in September 2009 and the couple had a son, Noorullah, born in June 2010. She alleged that disputes arose after the husband resumed relations with another woman whom he had earlier divorced, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home and live with her parents.
Husband to prove undue influence for acceptance of unilateral terms of deal, court rules
Elders and relatives from both sides later intervened and brokered a written settlement under which the husband agreed to provide Rs2,000 monthly maintenance, transfer five marlas of land in favour of the minor son, and construct a house on the land within three months at a cost of at least Rs1.3m.
The agreement further stated that failure to fulfil the obligations would make the husband liable to pay Rs25m as penalty or compensation.
The husband contested the suit and separately sought cancellation of the agreement, claiming he had been forced under undue influence to accept unilateral terms during reconciliation proceedings.
However, Justice Kamran observed that the respondent had admitted purchasing the stamp paper for the agreement and participating in reconciliation efforts through elders and relatives.
The judge held that once execution of the document and the surrounding circumstances were substantially admitted, the burden rested on the respondent (husband) to prove undue influence through convincing evidence.
“Mere assertion that the petitioner’s relatives or respectables compelled him to accept unilateral terms was not sufficient to defeat a written document,” the judge said.
The judge noted that the agreement expressly recorded that it was executed without coercion or compulsion and with free consent before witnesses.
According to the verdict, the respondent’s father had already transferred five marlas of land in favour of the minor son through a gift mutation before the agreement was formally written.
Justice Kamran stressed that courts ordinarily lean in favour of bona fide family settlements, especially those aimed at resolving matrimonial disputes and safeguarding the interests of wives and children.
He rejected the husband’s argument that the wife was first required to resume permanent cohabitation before he became bound to fulfil his obligations.
The judge also disagreed with the appellate court’s finding that the agreement became unenforceable because the woman was not physically present at the reconciliation meeting or a signatory to the document.
“In our social context, particularly in matters of matrimonial reconciliation, it is not uncommon that elders or male relatives of the wife participate in such deliberations on her behalf,” the judgement observed.
Allowing the petition, the high court judge set aside the 2017 appellate court judgement and restored the 2016 decree of the trial court.
The judge further ruled that due to substantial depreciation in the value of money since 2011, the woman would be entitled to recover the equivalent value of Rs25m either according to the prevailing US dollar exchange rate or the current market price of gold at the time of realisation.
Published in Dawn, May 24th, 2026
