The court upheld the validity of an extrajudicial divorce when appropriate reconciliation efforts were evident and procedural requirements were satisfied.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The appellant was married to the respondent on 15.12.2019 and a son was born to them on 23.04.2021.

2. However, it transpires that matrimonial strife germinated between the parties, which finally led the respondent to issue Ext.A2 “Khula Nama” dated 05.10.2023, to the appellant, thus divorcing him.

3. The respondent, thereupon, filed O.P.No.998/2023 before the learned Family Court, Thalassery, seeking declaration of her marital status as being divorced from the respondent and this has been allowed by the said Court, after recording her statement as PW1 and evaluating Exts.A1 to A6 documents produced by her.

4. The appellant - Sri.Muhammed Ashar K., appearing in person before us, assails the order of the learned Family Court primarily on two grounds, namely that: a) there was no conciliation between the parties before Ext.A2 “Khula Nama” was issued by the respondent and b) that the respondent has not offered to return the “Mahar” which she conceded has been received from him.

5. Sri.Muhammed Ashar K. argued that, when he had filed objections before the learned Family Court to the specific effect that the “Mahar” given by him to the respondent had not been returned; and that there had been no reconciliation talk between the parties, the learned Family Court could not have declared the divorce to be valid, even going by the judgment of this Court, which it relied upon, namely Asbi K.N. v. Hashim M.U. 2021 (6) KLT 292. He contended that, going by this precedent, though a detailed enquiry may not be necessary, the learned 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 showed us that, the said judgment further mandates that it was also incumbent upon the learned Court to have ascertained, from the recitations in the “Khula Nama” and its communication, that there was an offer by the respondent to return the “dower”. He argued that, in the absence of these requirements in this case, the learned Family Court has erred in having issued the impugned order.

6. Sri.T.P.Sajid – learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the above contentions are unsustainable because, even when Ext.A2 “Khula Nama” was issued, his client has specified that there were attempts of reconciliation initiated by her and her family, through 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. He then pointed out that, though his client had, in Ext.A2, conceded that “Mahar” had been given to her, 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. He added, relying upon Asbi.K.N (supra) that, the question whether there was an offer by the wife to return the “Mahar” is to 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 maintained that, when his client, as PW1, stated unequivocally before the learned Court that the “Mahar” given to her and then taken away by the appellant; and when he refused to controvert it by offering a statement of his, or even by producing any document in substantiation, the essential requisites for a “Khula Nama” to be declared valid, has been attracted in this case. He thus prayed that this Appeal be dismissed.

7. We have examined the order of the learned Family Court and have gone through the materials and depositions on record, which are that of P