Victory for women
THE town of Karak in KP is located in a society known to uphold tribal customs and traditions, even if they exact a tremendous cost. Even here, however, things are changing — and it is women who are the drivers of that change.
One such woman is Zahida Parveen, whose father worked at the Government Girls Primary School in Karak. She herself had an interest in education and wanted to be a schoolteacher. When her father passed away, Parveen petitioned to be appointed to his post at the Government Girls’ Primary School under the government quota reserved for the sons or daughters of deceased government personnel, as per the province’s Civil Servants Act. Parveen, who was married when she filed the petition, got the appointment. However, a little while later, the district education officer in Karak withdrew the appointment, stating that a daughter is only eligible to be appointed under the quota if she is unmarried and shares her parents’ household, or if she is married but separated from her husband. The implication was that if a woman is married, then she is her husband’s responsibility and cannot benefit from her father’s government post.
It was this interpretation that came before the Supreme Court in the ‘Zahida Parveen vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’ case. At the heart of the issue was whether a woman is considered a financial dependent of her husband as soon as she marries. In an extensive decision, the Supreme Court held that the interpretation of the statute adopted by the KP government was incorrect. Instead, the court ruled that a Pakistani woman is an independent financial entity even when she is married and has a husband. As a result, the court reasoned that Zahida Parveen was eligible to receive the benefits under the statute regardless of her marital status or whether her husband was providing for her financially.
The decision is significant. First and most obvious, it acknowledges women as financially independent entities. Second, it sets a precedent that women’s eligibility for benefits is not dependent on their marital status. Finally, it reiterates the human rights basis of recognising women as full and equal citizens without their marital status being a consideration. This last point is important because in the past, the marital status of women — and the husband’s prerogative over their lives — has loomed large over their exercise of rights. Zahida Parveen may be a government school teacher in a far-flung area, but her refusal to allow the government to exclude her from benefits based on her marital status has led to a landmark step forward for women across Pakistan.
Women challenging patriarchal customs are reshaping legal boundaries and reclaiming long-denied inheritance rights.
Zahida Parveen is not the only woman from the province who stood her ground in refusing to give up rights under pressure from a patriarchal culture. Another is Syeda Fouzia Jalaal Shah, who filed a petition under Article 203-D of the Constitution. In her filing before the Federal Shariat Court, Shah alleged that she and other women in district Bannu were being denied their right to inherit property due to a local tribal practice. Shah referred to a customary pressure known in the area as parchi or chaddar, under which women were coerced into relinquishing their right to ancestral property. The petition also cited religious verses which set out the rights that Muslim women have to inherit property.
In its proceedings, the FSC reviewed responses from all four provinces regarding such practices. While all provinces denied the existence of any custom by the specific names of chaddar or parchi, they acknowledged that women were regularly being deprived of their inheritance rights, often through emotional pressure or local custom. The court ruled that any practice — regardless of name — which deprives women of their rightful inheritance is unIslamic and illegal. However, it did not grant Shah any personal remedy for the alleged denial of her late mother’s inheritance rights, stating that such in personam relief lies outside its jurisdiction in a Shariat petition.
This distinction is crucial. While the court did not resolve Shah’s personal grievance, it did set down a general legal and moral precedent: customs that pressure women into relinquishing property rights, whether called parchi, chaddar, or any other name, have no legal or religious basis.
In a society where tradition and faith have long been entangled to limit women’s autonomy, this recognition is of critical importance. The ruling reinforces that women can challenge coercive practices such as haq bakhshwana in court using existing remedies. Among these is Section 498-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, which criminalises depriving a woman of her inherited property and prescribes imprisonment and fines for offenders.
The two decisions reflect crucial steps in recognising the financial autonomy of women — whether in terms of being considered financially independent or in their ability to inherit property. That it is two women whose stance contributed to this change and who refused to back down in the face of male pressure shows how women are becoming financially and legally literate — and are unafraid to raise their voices. It was particularly heartening to see the members of the FSC bench acknowledge the role of familial pressure and emotional blackmail in depriving women of their rights.
We are living through moments of great change, which can engender both anxiety and fear about the future of society. Inroads like these are essential sources of hope because they reveal how even institutions or customs once considered impenetrable and unassailable can be transformed for a more just and equitable future. As the story of these two cases — and the women behind them — suggests, sometimes change can be a good thing.
The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.
Published in Dawn, April 5th, 2025