ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has struck down a Sindh government circular that denied pension entitlement to a daughter who was divorced after the death of her pensioner father.
“We find that the circular, which imposes restrictions unsupported by the Act or the Rules, is void ab initio, unconstitutional, and of no legal effect. The timing of the pensioner’s death cannot lawfully be used to extinguish a surviving daughter’s right to claim pension,” reads the 10-page judgement authored by Justice Ayesha Malik, as the court dismissed the Sindh government’s appeal.
A division bench of the apex court, led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, underscored that the timely payment of pension was not merely an administrative measure but a constitutional obligation.
“It is deeply concerning that admissibility of pension to a surviving daughter continues to depend entirely on her marital status. This dependency model reveals that there is a systematic bias that treats a daughter as a dependent, with her financial dependency shifting from parent to spouse.”
“This assumption not only perpetuates the stereotypical mindset about women being dependent members within the family structure, but also fails to recognise women as individuals or autonomous persons who may have the capacity to be financially independent. It is also based in the flawed belief that unmarried or divorced women are financially dependent, while married women are financially secure. This mindset fails to account for the fact that married women may also face financial difficulty.”
“It reflects a systematic bias that fails to recognise women as autonomous right-holders and also does not account for the lived realities of women. It assumes, first and foremost, that all women are financially dependent within the traditional family unitfrom parents to husbandand secondly, that marriage per se ensures financial stability.”
The apex court further observed that the move totally ignored the hardship and insecurities faced by married women who may be in need of financial security in the form of a pension, adding that dependency is not a metric for financial stability; rather, it is an assumption that disregards actual economic need and the lived experiences of many women.
“The claim of surviving daughters should be based on need and individual assessment rather than a legal framework built on patriarchal assumptions as to what is stereotypically believed to constitute dependency. This form of presumptive exclusion based solely on marital status is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and a violation of Articles 14, 25, and 27 of the Constitution.”
“The concept of tying a daughter’s eligibility to family pension solely to her marital status results in an unjustifiable distinction.”
Justice Ayesha Malik stressed that women are independent right-holders, autonomous and should be entitled to a family pension where financial need is established. She added that Pakistan’s obligations under international law reinforce the principle that women cannot be denied access to economic entitlements based on marital status alone.
