ISLAMABAD – A woman, whether as a sister, daughter, mother or wife, is entitled to her rightful share in inheritance, a fundamental right enshrined in both religion and law of the land. Practically, yet, in much of Pakistan, this legal and moral principle remains distant from reality.
Across society, there is a pervasive and unjust belief that the expenses of a sister’s marriage can be offset by transferring her property rights to male family members – a practice that, while socially entrenched, represents a profound social injustice that must come to an end.
A day ago, the Supreme Court took a significant step in challenging this practice by dismissing an appeal seeking denial his sister’ share in inherited property. A two-member bench comprising the esteemed Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan delivered the verdict, who jointly rejected the plea. In their ruling, they held that a brother has no legal or moral grounds to deprive his sister of her lawful rights.
During the proceedings, Justice Afghan highlighted the glaring hypocrisy present in society, noting with poignant clarity that “the brother expects his sisters to serve him but refuses to give them their rightful share in the property while the sisters cook and clean the house.” His observation underscored the gender disparity and the unwritten social contract that often leaves women economically vulnerable.
Justice Rizvi added a powerful religious and legal dimension to the ruling, emphasizing that the Qur’an has unequivocally defined women’s shares in inheritance. He posed a rhetorical yet profound question, “How can one deny what is ordained by the Qur’an?” Justice Rizvi also pointed out a critical procedural flaw in the petitioner’s case: the sister’s signature was missing on the property distribution document, a detail that conclusively indicated a lack of consent on her part and invalidated the claim that she had willingly relinquished her rights.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the sister, identified as Maryam, had already received her share, but she insisted that the amount was insufficient and did not represent her lawful entitlement. After brief hearing of the matter, the Court found no legal or factual merit in the appeal.
The bench’s decision not only upheld her rightful claim but also sent a strong message across the country: women cannot and will not be deprived of the inheritance guaranteed to them by law and religion. This landmark decision serves as a crucial reaffirmation of women’s property rights and is a powerful stride toward a more just and equitable society where entrenched social practices do not override fundamental human rights.
