Mehr, a quranic right, is an economic safeguard, writes Flavia Agnes in ‘ Family Law – Volume 1: Family Laws and Constitutional Claims ’ (www.oup.com). She adds that it is a mark of respect to the wife and is meant to set off the disability suffered by women under the law of inheritance. “While as per Hanafi law, a minimum of ten dirhams is mandatory, legal texts routinely mention amounts of one thousand and two thousand dirhams by way of examples which indicate that the amounts settled were meant to be far above the lowest stipulated.”
The author cites theorists for the view that mehr forms the consideration in the contract of nikah, and that the Prophet converted the custom of bride price of tribal Arabia to mehr which would be a future security to a married woman. Noting that the stipulation of mehr at the time of marriage is an integral part of a Muslim marriage, Agnes mentions two methods, viz. prompt (Mu’ajjal) and deferred (Mu’wajjal). “If it is prompt, it is payable at the time of marriage. If it is deferred, it must be paid subsequently and in any case upon the dissolution of marriage either by death or divorce.”
If the mehr dues are unpaid at the time of the dissolution of marriage, the woman is entitled to retain possession of her deceased husband’s property, the author informs. “Mehr need not be paid only in cash. Gold ornaments, valuables, and other movable and immovable property can also be given as mehr.”
Legal precedents indicate that the rights of mehr and pre-marriage agreements were not illusory but secured women viable economic safeguards, she observes. In this context, the book discusses some of the earliest instances of legal enforcement of monetary claims, such as the Badarannissa Bibi’s case, decided by the Calcutta High Court in 1871.
Valuable reference.
BookPeek.blogspot.com
