Taha Ahmed
A daughter may be loved in her father’s home, celebrated at her wedding and welcomed at family gatherings. Yet, when his estate is divided, her place may become conditional. Brothers may expect her to surrender her share, while relatives question her intentions and invoke parental sacrifices to discourage her claim. In Pakistan, a daughter’s inheritance is recognized by Islamic law and the legal system. Yet, exercising that right can make her feel guilty.
Under Islamic inheritance principles, a daughter is a recognized heir whose share depends on the surviving heirs and the estate. Section 498-A of the Pakistan Penal Code criminalizes depriving a woman of inheritance through deceitful or illegal means. The framework is clear; the challenge is ensuring these rights survive family pressure and custom.
A daughter claiming her share may be accused of dividing the family, disrespecting her father’s wishes or depriving her brothers of their future. Expenditure on her education, wedding and upbringing may be invoked as reasons to surrender her entitlement. But gratitude is not justice. Marriage does not extinguish inheritance rights, nor does a brother’s financial need automatically entitle him to his sister’s share. Coercion is not always explicit. Appeals to family honour, a mother’s distress or fear of damaged relationships can pressure women into signing relinquishment deeds or settlements. How meaningful is consent when refusal risks familial rejection? A signature should not end scrutiny where fraud, misrepresentation or coercion is alleged. Courts must examine whether consent was free and informed.
In June 2026, the Federal Constitutional Court, in an appeal involving Bibi Amina and other female heirs, set aside a judgment upholding a compromise that deprived two sisters of inheritance. It directed scrutiny of settlements, relinquishments, gifts, mutations and other instruments affecting women’s rights. An apparent agreement, the case underscores, does not necessarily establish genuine consent.
In July 2026, the Supreme Court restored female heirs’ inheritance rights in a dispute dating to 1955. The case involved an alleged oral gift through which a widow and daughters were said to have relinquished property to male relatives. The Court rejected the lower courts’ treatment and directed correction of land records. A 71-year dispute exposes the human cost of delayed justice. Women challenging exclusion face legal expenses, repeated appearances, stigma and damaged relationships. Even a favourable judgment cannot restore decades lost fighting for property that should have devolved upon them.
The problem is not confined to brothers. Fathers may facilitate arrangements favouring sons, while families defend exclusion through tradition, financial need or the desire to preserve ancestral property within the male line. But custom cannot override inheritance rights. Nor can culture acquire religious legitimacy through repetition.
The response must extend beyond litigation. Revenue authorities should scrutinize suspicious transfers, courts must examine disputed relinquishments, and women need affordable legal remedies. Section 498-A must be enforced wherever its requirements are met.
A society’s commitment to women’s rights is tested not by what it acknowledges on paper, but by whether women can exercise those rights without punishment. A daughter’s inheritance is neither a favour from her brothers nor a threat to family honour. It is her right. Justice begins when she can claim it without guilt.
—The author is pursuing his Bachelor of Laws (LL.B. Hons) from the University of London.
