SC upholds Bait-ul-Mal aid for Hindu girls

SC upholds Bait-ul-Mal aid for Hindu girls.

Key points

• Nasir Iqbal Published September 8, 2026 Updated September 8, 2026 07: 37am.
• It so happened that Shrimati Re­eta, a Hindu woman, married Ravi Kumar in 2012, and two minor daughters, Jasika and Sanika, were born of the marriage.
• The controversy stemmed from PBM's challenge to the Dec 1, 2022, SHC order.
• Nevertheless, the family court decreed the claim for maintenance and directed Ram Raj to pay Rs3, 000 per month to each minor, with an annual growth of 10pc.
• Bait-ul-Mal may thereafter facilitate the applicant by assessing their circumstances in accordance with the applicable policy and eligibility criteria and determining the extent of assistance.

Nasir Iqbal Published September 8, 2026 Updated September 8, 2026 07: 37am. Join our Whatsapp Channel. Add Dawn as a trusted source.

Rejects plea against SHC order requiring Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal to pay Rs10, 000 per month to each girl, with 10pc annual growth until marriage CJP states courts may look beyond legal questions to address underlying predicament.

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea filed by the Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal (PBM) challenging the Sindh High Court's Dec 1, 2022, order directing the welfare institution to provide financial backing to two Hindu minor girls.

In practice, a three-judge SC bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Miangul Hassan Auran­gzeb, upheld the SHC Larkana Circuit Court's order requiring the PBM to register the minors as beneficiaries for payment of monthly maintenance of Rs10, 000 each, with an annual growth of 10 per cent, until their marriage.

Though the Supreme Court appreciated the concern shown by the high court for the welfare of the minors, it laid down a framework for future cases, stating that cases should be referred to the PBM for consideration where circumstances disclosed before a court appear to warrant recourse to the institution.

"This course allows the concerned court to bring a deserving case within the reach of the welfare institution established to respond to it, without displacing the structure through which the PBM is required to administer its assistance, " the court observed.

For context, the controversy stemmed from PBM's challenge to the Dec 1, 2022, SHC order. It held that Ram Raj – the paternal grandfather of the two minor Hindu children – was not personally liable for their maintenance under the applicable family law. Nevertheless, the high court additionally directed Bait-ul-Mal to register the minors as regular beneficiaries and pay each of them monthly maintenance.

It so happened that Shrimati Re­eta, a Hindu woman, married Ravi Kumar in 2012, and two minor daughters, Jasika and Sanika, were born of the marriage. Ravi Kumar afterwards died by suicide on May 20, 2017.

With no independent source of income to maintain herself and her daughters after her husband's death, Shrimati Reeta instituted proceedings before a family court in Jacobabad, seeking maintenance for the minors from one of the respondents, their paternal grandfather, Ram Raj.

Ram Raj's own circumstances were scarcely better. Aged and infirm, he too lacked a source of income and a residence of his own and was living in a dharamshala (charitable shelter).

Nevertheless, the family court decreed the claim for maintenance and directed Ram Raj to pay Rs3, 000 per month to each minor, with an annual growth of 10pc. After which Ram Raj invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the SHC, the decree was maintained in appeal.

CJP Afridi observed in the judgement that courts were not infrequently faced with cases where resolution of the legal question at hand did not necessarily resolve the underlying predicament of the parties. Thus, in fully discharging its judicial function, a court may look beyond the immediate legal question and seek to address that predicament.

And when a state institution exists precisely for that purpose, the court may particularly well seek its assistance, he observed. The present case, the CJP observed, demonstrated precisely why such recourse may sometimes become necessary.

According to The judgement, the minors' mother was a widow without an independent source of income, while their paternal grandfather, himself aged and infirm, was living in destitute conditions.

According to The judgement, the two children belonged to a religious minority in a country where minorities occupied a particularly vulnerable position, with social and economic hardships often bearing upon them with greater force.

While poverty, loss of familial backing and other forms of hardship were challenging to withstand in themselves, their impact might be considerably more acute for those who already stood outside the social majority, the verdict noted.

Therefore, institutions of the state must remain mindful of this reality, the judgement remarked, adding that for Jasika and Sanika, their minority status formed a crucial part of the wider context in which their need for backing should be considered. Published in Dawn, September 8th, 2026.

For now, SC upholds Bait-ul remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.