JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran , J.

The respondent pronounced “Khula” against the appellant on 30.06.2021 and she asserts that this was done after several rounds of mediation were attempted and completed between the parties; and after she made it luculent that she was willing to return the “Mahar”.

2. It transpires that the respondent, thereupon, filed OP No.759/2021 before the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, seeking endorsement of the “Khula” and for declaration of the marital status of the parties as being divorced, which has been allowed by the said Court through the impugned judgment.

3. The appellant challenges the impugned order on various grounds, but primarily that he did not receive the “Khula letter” and that there was no attempt of mediation between the parties prior to its pronouncement.

4. Sri.K.H.Asif – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, when his client had filed his counter statement averring specifically that he had not received the “Khula letter”, nor had there been a conciliation precedent to it, it was impermissible for the learned Family Court to have allowed the endorsement as sought for by the respondent and to have resultantly declared the marital status between the parties. He, however, conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that his client neither offered any oral statement, nor did he adduce any evidence in substantiation of his plea; but argued that, even without this, he is entitled to prosecute this appeal because, his written statement contained the requisite averments. He thus prayed that this appeal be allowed.

5. Sri.Sadiqali M. - learned counsel for the respondent, in response, submitted that the learned Family Court was without error in having issued the impugned judgment because, his client's evidence on record establishes every criteria as is required for endorsement of the “Khula”; and which remains uncontroverted in evidence. He contended that, when the evidence is ineluctable that the “Khula” is valid and that the marital status of the parties has already been dissolved, it was within the power of the learned Family Court to have issued the judgment, particularly in view of the declarations in Asbi K.N. v.

Hashim M.U. [2021 (6) KHC 159], which stipulates that the requisite enquiry is only to be summary in nature and not to involve detailed procedures like examination or cross- examination, as is in the case of adversarial litigations. He thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

6. We have considered the afore submissions of the parties on the touchstone of the evidence on record - copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by Sri.Sadiqali. We record that Sri.Asif K.H did not oppose consideration of the evidence and the statements that were so handed over by Sri.Sadiqali.

7. As rightly argued by Sri.Sadiqali, admittedly, there is no evidence on the part of the appellant on record; and neither did he give his oral statement, nor mark any documents. 8. On the contrary, the respondent examined herself as PW1 and produced Ext.A1 “Khula letter”; Ext.A2 postal receipt qua such letter; and Ext.A3 Marriage Certificate.

9. The statement of PW1 is to the specific effect that there were several rounds of mediation between the parties in various forums; but that none of them were fruitful, thus constraining her to have pronounced “Khula” on 30.06.2021. She also testified that she is ready to return the “Mahar”, but that the appellant has not accepted the same.

10. It is without contest that the oral statement of PW1 remains uncontroverted and unimpeached because, the petitioner offered no oral statement from his side. Therefore, the assertion of the appellant, that he did not receive Ext.A1, will have to be tested on the basis of the other evidence on record; and we notice that Ext.A2 is the postal receipt indicating such. Therefore, an argument to such effect becomes untenable.

11. Coming to the contention of the appellant that there was no mediation between the parties befor