A wife’s khula does not require her husband’s consent, Kerala High Court reiterates, limiting Family Court inquiry to a summary review of legal requirements

The respondent-wife filed OP No. 1211 of 2025 before the Family Court, Malappuram, seeking a declaration of khula.

The petitioner-husband filed a separate OP before the Family Court, Tirur, seeking to have the khula declared void, among other reliefs.

In the wife’s proceeding, the husband sought to have the legal validity of khula tried as a preliminary issue, to produce documents and examine witnesses, and to keep the proceeding in abeyance. The Family Court dismissed those applications.

Although the husband had filed a counter, he had not filed a sworn statement despite several postings.

He challenged the dismissal orders before the High Court.

Whether a detailed inquiry, including the opportunity for the husband to adduce evidence, is required when a Family Court is asked to endorse an extrajudicial khula and declare the parties’ marital status.

Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the husband’s applications for a preliminary issue, evidence, and abeyance warranted interference.

Under Section 7(d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court may declare a person’s matrimonial status.

In X and Others v. Y and Others [2021 (2) KLT 967], the Kerala High Court held that khula is valid where there is (i) the wife’s declaration repudiating or terminating the marriage, (ii) an offer to return the dower or other material gain received during the marriage, and (iii) an effective attempt at reconciliation before the declaration.

Asbi K.N. v. Hashim M.U. [2021 (6) KLT 292], following X, prescribes a summary inquiry: after notice, the Family Court considers the parties’ statements and any relevant khula nama or communication, and, on prima facie satisfaction of a valid pronouncement and the applicable requirements, declares the parties’ status without further inquiry.

Sudheer v. Surumiya [2024 KHC OnLine 1269] and Muhammed Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K. [2025 (7) KHC 119] reaffirmed that limited scope.

The Court distinguished Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. [2002 (3) KLT 537] and Shayara Bano v. Union of India [2017 (4) KHC SN 19] as concerning instantaneous/triple talaq, rather than khula.

The Court held that the authorities relied on by the husband did not require a full trial in a proceeding seeking endorsement of khula: the Supreme Court decisions concerned triple talaq, while X and Asbi specifically addressed khula and limited the Family Court’s inquiry.

The husband’s right to challenge the effectiveness of the khula remained available through an appropriate proceeding, but did not entitle him to convert the endorsement proceeding into a detailed evidentiary inquiry.

The Court also noted that he had not filed a sworn statement in the Family Court despite repeated opportunities.

It therefore found no basis to disturb the challenged orders.

It dismissed the original petition and declined to interfere with the Family Court’s orders.