The first one is, as you know, in this country the rate of divorce is so high that it can really be called a runaway sort of thing. So there was no protection for women in this country in the past. But about two years ago, the British government has passed legislation giving women a sort of haqqma’ir, but that is to a certain type of women only. Government has passed legislation that if a couple get married, the very time that registration take place, if the husband is owner of a house, not business, matrimonial house, the woman automatically becomes half owner of that house.
Now in view of this, what would be the position of we people, who have already sort of promised a certain amount of haqqma’ir to ladies? Well, in that case, haqqma’ir is no longer necessary. And that legal obligation, which each couple has to meet, can be considered a replacement of haqqma’ir, but it should be understood in so many words. We have got a similar case reported in the MLA history, where Hazrat Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan Sahib, the son-in-law of the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, fixed the haqqma’ir, that is the dowry, to an exorbitant size, I mean nobody could imagine that normally such haqqma’irs could be fixed.
So normally it is discouraged to inflate out of proportion any haqqma’ir. It should be a normal, moderate sum of money. The reason which he gave was very understandable. He said, according to the laws of our state, Walid Ghotla state, my wife cannot inherit me. So to offset that, I have proposed the haqqma’ir to be equal to the value of what my wife might have inherited in case of Islamic practice of giving one-eighth or one-fourth to the wife. So he compensated for that, and the Promised Messiah, peace be upon him, approved of it. That was made clear.
So if after the death, no legacy was left for Hazrat Nawab Mubaraka, nobody had a right to raise a finger that Islamic laws of inheritance had not been followed, because they were already met with in a different way, and the provision was provided. So if it can be provided there, why not in this country? So it’s the opposite case. Their law prevented the implementation of an Islamic right given to ladies. Here they give more than the right that Islam gives. So whatever is the right Islam gives should be considered as a part of that, provided that the house is of a value which fulfils the requirement.
So no blind universal decision can be applied to each case. Each case has to be decided on its merit. Suppose somebody is so wealthy that he owns property abroad, not only in this country but abroad in so many places, and also liquid assets, which are to a value that even if half of the house is handed over to the wife, yet the wife would have inherited much more after his death, then that cannot compensate, if, I mean, I’m considering inheritance now, that would not compensate for that.
Similarly, if a man’s income is so much that the dowry money he should pay normally, that is according to our calculation, roughly according to the general formula, it should be one year’s income or six months’ income. So if his income is so big that the price of the house falls short of that dowry which he should have fixed, then he should fix some dowry over and above that half the house price and compensate for that. So this is why I say no thumb rule can be given, but there is a general principle involved that compensation can be made. But still let me revise my first statement.
I don’t like the haqq-mehr to be totally absent because the wife would get half the house. But instead of that we can say that in such cases a nominal haqq-mehr can be fixed with the view that already she has got half the house, so it’s enough.
