The High Court of Kerala has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a Family Court’s order that declared his marriage dissolved by ‘Khula’ (a form of extra-judicial divorce initiated by the wife).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, in their judgment dated October 13, 2025, upheld the finding of the Family Court, Thalassery. The High Court held that the wife’s unequivocal testimony before the Family Court, stating that the ‘Mahar’ (dower) had been taken away by the husband, was sufficient to satisfy the legal requirements for a valid Khula, even though this fact was not mentioned in the written “Khula Nama” (divorce deed).
Background of the Case
The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were married on 15.12.2019, and a son was born to them on 23.04.2021. According to the judgment, “matrimonial strife germinated between the parties,” which led the respondent-wife to issue an Ext.A2 “Khula Nama” on 05.10.2023, thus divorcing the appellant.
Following this, the wife filed O.P.No.998/2023 before the Family Court, Thalassery, seeking a declaration of her marital status as being divorced. The Family Court, by its judgment dated 26.03.2024, allowed her petition after recording her statement as PW1 and evaluating documents marked as Exts. A1 to A6.
The husband, appearing as a party-in-person, filed the Mat.Appeal No. 625 of 2024 before the High Court, challenging the Family Court’s order.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant-husband, appearing as a party-in-person, assailed the Family Court’s order “primarily on two grounds.”
- He argued that “there was no conciliation between the parties” before the Ext.A2 “Khula Nama” was issued by his wife.
- He contended “that the respondent has not offered to return the ‘Mahar’, which she conceded has been received from him.”
Citing the High Court’s previous judgment in Asbi.K.N v. Hashim.M.U. [2021 6 KLT 292], the appellant argued that the Family Court “ought to have ascertained whether there was a valid pronouncement / declaration of ‘Khula’ and whether it was preceded by an effective attempt at conciliation.” He further contended that the court failed to ascertain from the “Khula Nama” that “there was an offer by the respondent to return the ‘dower’.”
In response, Sri. T.P. Sajid, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife, submitted that the appellant’s contentions were “unsustainable.”
- On conciliation, he pointed out that the Ext.A2 “Khula Nama” “specified that there were attempts of reconciliation initiated by her and her family” through two named individuals, Sri. K. Abdul Sathar and Sri. P.K. Mahmood, “but that the appellant did not accede to it, nor had agreed for any viable settlement.”
- Regarding the ‘Mahar’, the counsel argued that while the wife conceded in Ext.A2 that ‘Mahar’ had been given, “she has stated in her petition, as well as in her testimony as PW1, that the same had been taken away by the appellant even before she had issued the said ‘Kula Nama’ to him.”
- Relying on Asbi.K.N (supra), he maintained that the question of an offer to return ‘Mahar’ can be ascertained “not merely from the recitals in the ‘Khula Nama’ or his communication, but can also be done through the recording of the statement of the parties.” He stressed that when his client (PW1) “stated unequivocally before the learned Court that the ‘Mahar’ given to her and then taken away by the appellant,” the appellant “refused to controvert it by offering a statement of his, or even by producing any document in substantiation.”
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Division Bench, after examining the order of the Family Court and the depositions on record, first addressed the issue of ‘Mahar’. The court observed, “Upfront, we agree with the submissions of the appellant… that the ‘Khula Nama’ does not specifically say that the ‘Mahar’ which the respondent admitted to, has been either returned, or will be returned, or has been taken away by him.”
However, the bench immediately noted that “in the petition before the learned Family Court, the respondent has unequivocally stated that the ‘Mahar’ had been taken away by the appellant much before she issued Ext.A2; and she reiterated so in her proof affidavit and the statement which she gave as PW1.” The wife’s chief affidavit specified the ‘Mahar’ was 10 sovereigns of gold.
The High Court placed significant weight on the appellant’s failure to rebut this evidence in the trial court. The judgment states, “It is pertinent that in spite of the above and though alerted by the pleadings and statement of the respondent, the appellant neither filed a proof affidavit, nor did he choose to offer a statement on his own.”
The court found the appellant’s new argument before the High Court—that the mediators were relatives of the respondent—to be counter-productive. The bench opined, “This virtually fortifies the opinion of the learned Family Court that there were attempts of reconciliation; and this is more so because, if the appellant had a case of such nature, nothing prevented him from filing an affidavit to such effect, or in giving his statement in answer to PW1.”
Regarding the legal position on ‘Mahar’, the High Court found favour with the respondent’s submissions based on Asbi.K.N (supra), which lays down three methods for the Family Court to assess the offer to return ‘Mahar’:
- By evaluating the “Khula Nama” itself.
- From the communication, if issued.
- “by recording the statement of the parties.”
The bench held that the third method was satisfied in this case. “In this case, the statement of PW1 unequivocally says, as she had averred in the pleadings also, that the ‘Mahal’ had been taken away by the appellant…” The court clarified the implication of this uncontroverted testimony: “This does not mean that such statement of the respondent ought to be blindly accepted or believed, but the fact that the appellant chose not to file his proof affidavit, or to offer statement before the learned Trial Court, travels to establish the truth of the assertions of the respondent.”
The High Court concluded, “Thus, when the factum of an attempt of reconciliation and the absence of ‘Mahar’ with the respondent being prima facie established, we cannot find any reason to doubt, or to find in error, the views and holdings of the learned Family Court.”
Decision
The High Court affirmed the legal principle that “Khula” is a mode of extra-judicial divorce and the Family Court’s role is “only to verify whether the pronouncement/declaration… was done in proper manner, and if it was preceded by an effective attempt of conciliation.”
Finding that “the attempt of conciliation proceedings… has been established; and… the incapacity of the respondent to return the ‘Mahar’ also stands proved,” the bench dismissed the appeal.
The judgment concluded, “we obtain no cogent cause to find the judgment of the learned Family Court to be in any kind of error; and consequently, dismiss this Appeal.” The court also noted that this declaration “does not preclude the right of the appellant from challenging the divorce as per law for which, liberties are reserved in Asbi.K.N (supra) itself.”
