کشف استحقاق غیر نسبت به مهرالمسمی بعد از فوت زوج؛ نحوه مطالبه مهریه و غرامات وارده

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
In cases of permanent marriage, where the specified dowry (Mahr al-Musamma) is a specific, non-transferrable immovable property, the discovery of third-party entitlement to that property after the husband's death presents a complex legal challenge. Following this discovery, the obligation to provide a substitute (badal) for the dowry transfers to the deceased husband's heirs. However, the Iranian lawmaker has remained silent on several crucial procedural aspects. Significant legal ambiguities exist, particularly regarding the correct method and time for the property valuation, and the scope of recoverable damages, such as those arising from currency depreciation or devaluation incurred by the wife. Given the lack of explicit legal provisions, this research relies on jurisprudential texts (Fiqh) and legal instruments to resolve these critical issues.
 
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The core research question addresses the formal consequences of discovering third-party entitlement to the dowry after the husband's demise. The study specifically seeks to resolve the ambiguities surrounding the time of property valuation and the extent to which the wife can claim compensation (gharamat) for losses sustained, particularly those resulting from devaluation or depreciation of the monetary value. This investigation involves determining the proper legal classification of the replacement obligation—whether it constitutes Mahr al-Mithl (equivalent dowry) or Badal Mahr al-Musamma (substitute for the specified dowry)—and establishing the formal requirements for claiming ancillary damages.
 
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The article hypothesizes two primary outcomes related to the resolution of the wife's claim. First, concerning the time of valuation, the hypothesis asserts that the day the husband's debt (ishtighāl dhimmah) for the dowry substitute begins aligns with the date on which the real owner of the property refuses to ratify (affirm) the allocation of the property to the wife. Second, regarding compensation, the hypothesis suggests that the wife’s ability to recover damages incurred due to devaluation, where the due date differs from the debt date, must be based strictly on the general provisions for monetary claims, specifically Articles 515 and 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that this recovery is limited to losses sustained during the husband's lifetime.
 
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
The research employs a descriptive-analytical method utilizing jurisprudential texts and legal analysis. The framework involves a comparative study, drawing foundations and rulings from legally analogous situations, such as liability concerning unauthorized contracts (mu'āmalāt fudhūlī) and the guarantee of understanding (ḍamān-e darak). Given the silence of Iranian civil law, the analysis relies on jurisprudential principles mandated by Article 167 of the Constitution. The study critically distinguishes the nature of the husband’s obligation to pay the mahr substitute from the rules governing unauthorized sales to establish the proper time for valuation and the legal basis for claiming damages.
 
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The results confirm that the husband becomes the debtor for the dowry substitute on the day the real owner fails to affirm the allocation of the dowry to the wife, and the property valuation must be carried out relative to this date. The analysis demonstrates that the discovery of third-party entitlement to the dowry is legally distinct from the non-monetary obligations addressed by the guarantee of understanding (ḍamān-e darak) under Articles 263 and 391 of the Civil Code. Consequently, the precedent set by Decision 733 concerning the recovery of damages for currency devaluation of the Thaman (price in sale) cannot be extended to the dowry substitute. Instead, the wife is entitled to seek compensation for losses resulting from devaluation by applying the general rules for claiming money (monetary inflation) found in Articles 515 and 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 
‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
The article concludes that when third-party entitlement to the specified dowry is discovered after the husband’s death, the time of valuation for the substitute property must coincide with the date of the real owner’s non-affirmation. Claims for damages, including those due to devaluation, are not governed by the rules concerning unauthorized transactions or ḍamān-e darak. The recovery of such damages, which are limited to losses incurred during the husband's lifetime, is permissible solely through the application of the general procedural rules of Articles 515 and 522 and must be satisfied by the heirs from the deceased’s estate.