IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ TH THURSDAY, THE 20 DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946 MAT.APPEAL NO. 869 OF 2023 JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2023 IN OP NO.294 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

RAISAL MOIDHEEN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. MOIDHEEN, PAMBINEZHATH HOUSE, CK VALAVU DESOM, MATHILAKAM P.O., PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680685, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FATHER P.S.MOIDHEEN,AGED 63 YRS, S/O. SAIDU BAVA, PAMBINEZHATH HOUSE, CK VALAVU DESOM, MATHILAKAM P.O., PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680685 BY ADVS.

C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL P.ABDUL NISHAD MUHAMMED AMEEN RAIHANATH T.H.

ISTINAF ABDULLAH RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

DR. RASHMIN NOUSHAD, AGED 27 YEARS D/O. NOUSHADH K.M., KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, VARADIYAM DESOM, PERAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680545 SRI PREMCHAND M, FOR PARTY RESP.

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The respondent has approached the Family court, Thrissur and has preferred O.P. No.294/2023 seeking to declare that the marriage between the parties have been dissolved by pronouncing “Khula” on 2.1.2023. According to the petitioner, by order dated 10.10.2023, the Family court, after recording the statement, granted the decree as prayed for.

2. Sri. C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order passed by the Family court cannot be sustained. According to the learned counsel, no enquiry was conducted to satisfy whether the Khula pronounced by the respondent is valid.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. In X and Others v. Y and Others, [[2021(2)KHC709]], this Court had occasion to elaborate on the jurisdiction of the Family court in matters related to extra judicial divorce. It was held as follows in paragraph No.

76 of the judgment:

“The Family Courts Act, 1984 provides for the establishment of the Family Courts to exercise the jurisdiction excercisable by District Courts or any subordinate Civil Courts under law in regard to the matters specifically referred to in S.7 of the Family Courts Act. Explanation (d) of S.7(d) of the Family Courts Act, confers the Family Court with the jurisdiction to declare the matrimonial status of any person. Therefore, there is no difficulty for the Family Court to endorse an extra - judicial divorce to declare the matrimonial status of a person. In the matter of talaq, khula, mubaraat, talaq - e - tafwiz, the Family Courts shall entertain such applications moved by either of the parties or both parties to declare the marital status of such parties. In the matter of unilateral dissolution of marriage, invoking khula and talaq, the scope of inquiry before the Family Courts is limited. In such proceedings, the court shall record the khula or talaq to declare the marital status of the parties after due notice to other party. If any person want to contest the effectiveness of khula or talaq, it is open for such aggrieved person to contest the same in appropriate manner known under law. In the matter of mubaraat and talaq - e - tafwiz, on being satisfied that the dissolution is being effected on mutual consent, the Family Court without further inquiry shall declare the marital status. We notice Family Courts are overburdened with large number of cases. The Family Court therefore, shall restrain from adjudicating upon such extra judicial divorce unless it is called upon to decide its validity in appropriate manner. The Family Court in such matters shall endeavour to dispose the cases treating it as uncontested matter, without any delay by passing a formal order declaring the marital status.

5. This Court had held that in the matter of unilateral dis