Attempt Of Reconciliation & Absence Of Mahar With Wife Prima Facie Established: Kerala High Court Upholds Order Declaring Marital Status Of Woman As Divorced

The High Court was considering a matrimonial appeal filed by the appellant husband.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha held, “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.”

The Petitioner appeared in-person while Advocate T.P. Sajid represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Appellant got married to the respondent wife in the year 2019 and a son was born to them in 2021. Matrimonial strife germinated between the parties, which finally led the respondent to issue a Khula Nama in 2023, to the appellant, thus divorcing him. The respondent, filed a Petition before the Family Court, Thalassery, seeking declaration of her marital status as being divorced from the respondent and the same was allowed by the said Court.

Arguments

The appellant husband assailed the order of the Family Court on the ground that there was no conciliation between the parties before the Khula Nama was issued by the respondent. It was further submitted that the respondent wife had not offered to return the Mahar, which she conceded had been received from him.

It was the wife’s case that even when Khula Nama was issued, the respondent specified that there were attempts of reconciliation initiated by her and her family, but that the appellant did not accede to it, nor had agreed for any viable settlement.

Reasoning

The Bench concurred with the submission of the appellant that the Khula Nama did not specifically say that the Mahar which the respondent admitted to, had been either returned, or would be returned, or had been taken away by him. However, in the petition before the Family Court, the respondent had unequivocally stated that the “Mahar” had been taken away by the appellant much before she issued the Khula Namaa, and she reiterated so in her proof affidavit and the statement which she gave before the Court.

It was also noticed that in the chief affidavit, the respondent spoke not only about the “Mahar” having been taken away by the appellant, but also that there were attempts of mediation between the parties through the two mediators, but that it did not fructify.

The Bench noticed that the statement of the wife unequivocally stated that as she had averred in the pleadings also, that the “Mahar” had been taken away by the appellant much before she had issued the Khula Nama. “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”, it added.

It was noticed that the attempt of conciliation proceedings before issuance of the Khula Nama had been established and the incapacity of the respondent to return the “Mahar” also stood proved. “That said, the endorsement of the extra judicial divorce and consequential declaration by the learned court, 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”, it added.

Thus, finding no error with the judgment of the Family Court, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:76062)

Appearance

Appellant: Party-In-Person

Respondent: Advocates T.P.Sajid, K.P. Mohamed Shafi, Shifa Latheef, Sreeshma B. Chandran, Muhammed Haroon A.N., Hasharurahiman U.Mohemed Favas

Click here to read/download Order