Many couples in Scarborough keep the nikahnama from their wedding in Karachi, Lahore, Hyderabad or Dubai in a drawer for years. Then the marriage ends here, and the paper comes out. The wife wants to know if an Ontario court will make her husband pay the mahr written on it. The husband wants to know if that amount is added on top of dividing the family's property or counted inside it. Ontario law has an answer to both, and the second one turns on a few words in the contract.
When a nikahnama counts as a marriage contract in Ontario
The Family Law Act lets two people who are married, or about to marry, sign a marriage contract about property, support and other matters (section 52). A mahr clause is a promise of money, gold or property from the husband to the wife, so Ontario courts have treated it as part of such a contract. Section 55(1) then sets three tests. The contract must be:
- made in writing;
- signed by both spouses;
- witnessed.
A typical nikahnama has all three: the written terms, the signatures of bride and groom, and the signatures of witnesses. In the 2017 Court of Appeal case discussed below, the trial judge found the Iranian contract met section 55(1) for exactly these reasons, and the appeal court did not disturb that finding.
Being signed abroad does not take the contract outside Ontario law. Section 58 says the formalities are governed by the law of the contract, but a contract governed by another country's law is also valid here if it was made in a way that meets Ontario's internal law. Ontario's power to set a contract aside applies to it all the same.
The words that decide where the mahr goes
When a married couple separates, Ontario does not split each item. Each spouse adds up the value of what they own on the separation date, minus debts and minus what they brought into the marriage. That figure is the net family property. The spouse with the higher figure pays the other half the difference, which is called an equalization payment. The Ontario government's page on dividing property explains the same steps.
A mahr that is still unpaid is money the husband owes and the wife is owed. The question is whether it sits inside that calculation or outside it. Section 4(2)6 of the Act lets spouses keep property out of net family property, but only property they have agreed by a domestic contract is not to be included. So the court reads the contract to see whether such an agreement is there.
In an earlier case, Khanis, the husband had written that the mahr was given
in addition and without prejudice to and not in substitution of
his obligations under the laws of the land. The courts read that as a clear agreement to keep the mahr outside equalization, so the wife got her share of the property and the mahr on top. In Bakhshi v. Hosseinzadeh, 2017 ONCA 838, the contract had no such words. The Court of Appeal held that without evidence of a different intention when the contract was signed, the mahr is treated like any other debt between spouses and goes into the calculation (paragraphs 29 to 34).
The Bakhshi case in dollars
The couple married in Iran in 1995 and later moved to Canada. Their contract promised the wife 230 gold coins, which the trial judge valued at $79,580. Before counting the mahr, the husband's net assets were $214,990 and the wife's were minus $17,210. These are the court's own figures, from paragraphs 6 and 41 to 43 of the decision.
| Figure | Trial judge: mahr kept outside | Court of Appeal: mahr counted in |
|---|---|---|
| Husband's net family property | $214,990 | $135,410 |
| Wife's net family property | $0 (a negative figure is treated as zero) | $62,370 |
| Equalization payment to the wife | $107,495 | $36,520 |
| Mahr the husband still has to pay | $79,580 | $79,580 |
| Equalization and mahr together | $187,075 | $116,100 |
The mahr was still owed in both columns. The Court of Appeal said plainly that the wife was entitled to collect it as a debt. What changed was the equalization. Counted inside, the mahr lowered his net figure by $79,580 and raised hers by the same amount, so the gap between them shrank. Kept outside, her negative net worth was raised to zero by section 4(5) of the Act, and he paid half of his whole $214,990. The difference for her was $70,975, before post-separation adjustments of $44,449.93 that were the same in both.
Every contract is read on its own words and facts, so these numbers show how the rule works, not what another couple will receive.
When a court can set the contract aside
A spouse who signed a nikahnama does not lose every argument against it. Section 56(4) lets a court set aside a domestic contract, or one clause of it, in these cases:
- one spouse did not disclose significant assets, debts or other liabilities that existed when the contract was made;
- one spouse did not understand the nature or consequences of the contract;
- any ground the ordinary law of contract allows, such as duress.
In Bakhshi the trial judge looked at these points, found the terms simple and found the husband understood them, and the Court of Appeal saw no reason to interfere.
Section 56(5) matters for families where a religious divorce is part of the talks. A court may set aside all or part of a separation agreement or settlement if one spouse's removal of barriers to the other's remarriage within their faith was a consideration in making it. In plain words: agreeing to give or accept a religious divorce should not be traded for giving up money the law would otherwise give.
What a mahr clause cannot decide
Children
Section 52(1)(c) lets a marriage contract cover the education and moral training of children, but not decision-making responsibility or parenting time. Section 56(1.1) lets a court disregard any child support clause that is unreasonable under the child support guidelines. A mahr does not replace support for the children.
The family home
Section 52(2) says a clause in a marriage contract that tries to limit a spouse's rights to the matrimonial home is unenforceable. Whatever the nikahnama says, both spouses keep the rights Part II of the Act gives them to the home they lived in.
Before you meet a lawyer about the mahr
The Ontario government's page sets the time limit for asking a court to decide equalization: six years from the day you separated, or two years from the day the divorce became final, whichever comes first. Do not wait for the religious side to finish before you get advice on the civil side.
Bring the original nikahnama, any certified translation, the dates of the marriage and the separation, and a list of what each of you owned and owed on the day you married and on the day you separated. If the marriage itself took place outside Canada, his page on getting a divorce in Ontario after marrying abroad covers the court papers. Muhammad Nadeem's family law services include marriage contracts, property division and contested divorce, and you can read about his Law Society of Ontario licence on the about page. He offers a free 30-minute consultation in English, Urdu, Punjabi or Hindi at 1225 Kennedy Road.
This article is general information about Ontario family law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice for your own case.
Questions people ask
Our nikahnama was signed in Pakistan, not in Ontario. Does an Ontario court still look at it?
Yes. Section 58 of the Family Law Act says a contract governed by another country's law is also valid in Ontario if it was made in a way that meets Ontario's own rules. Section 56, the court's power to set a contract aside, applies to it as well.
Can we change the mahr amount after the wedding?
Yes, but section 55(1) says an agreement to amend a domestic contract is unenforceable unless it is in writing, signed by both of you and witnessed. A promise made by phone or in a family meeting is not enough.
Does it help to call the mahr a dowry or a gift from the husband?
No. In Bakhshi the wife argued the mahr was like a dowry, and the Court of Appeal said that did not help her: only gifts from a third person after the marriage are excluded under section 4(2)1, and a gift from the husband is not one of them.