IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945 MAT.APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2023 IN O.P.NO.1268 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

NOUFAL AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KOLAKKATTIL KUNHANU (LATE), KOLAKATTIL HOUSE, PARAPPUR AMSOM DESOM, PARAPPUR P.O., KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676503.

BY ADVS.

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

ISTINAF ABDULLAH MUHAMMED AMEEN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

MUNASSA JABEEN, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.MUSLIYAR KALATHIL MUHAMMEDKUTTY, MUSLIYAR KALATHIL VEEDU, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM,PUTHOOR DESOM, PUTHOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505.

BY ADVS.

JAYESH MOHANKUMAR K PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH VANDANA MENON VIMAL VIJAY THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

The respondent in O.P.No.1268 of 2022 of the Family Court, Malappuram has filed this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. He assails the decree dated 13.01.2023 in the said original petition, by which the marriage contracted between the appellant and the respondent on 15.09.2002 was dissolved.

2. The appeal was admitted on 02.02.2023. Operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.01.2023 was stayed for a period of one month as per the order in I.A.No.1 of 2023. The interim order was extended on 13.03.2023 for a further period of one month.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The respondent filed O.P.No.1268 of 2022 before the Family Court, Malappuram to declare that Khula pronounced by her on 15.08.2022 was valid and thereby her marriage with the appellant stood dissolved. She contended that after the marriage on 15.09.2002, she along with the appellant were living peacefully and a child was born in that relationship. However, when she got employment under the National Health Mission Scheme in 2015, there arose issues in their matrimonial relationship. The appellant used to torture her physically and mentally. She had left the marital company and that followed mediation, involving members of both the families. There were such mediations in 2017, 2020 and 2022. Following mediations on earlier two occasions, they could live together, but in 2022, no solution could be arrived at. In such circumstances, the respondent pronounced Khula on 15.08.2022. She informed her readiness to return four sovereigns of gold ornaments given to her as Maher. It is in the said circumstances, the respondent filed O.P.No.1268 of

2022.

5. The appellant entered appearance and filed a counter statement. He refuted the contentions and allegations in the original petition. He attributed fault on the part of the respondent. It is contended that the respondent has psychiatric issues and chemical disorder. He always has been taking care of her. He further contended that there was no valid pronouncement of Khula.

6. The Family Court, after recording sworn statements of both the appellant and the respondent, found that there was prima facie grounds for accepting the Khula pronounced by the respondent as valid. Accordingly, the Family Court allowed the original petition accepting the Khula pronounced by the respondent on 15.08.2022 as valid and passed a decree dissolving the marriage.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Family Court did not comply with the directions in Asbi K.N. v. Hashim M.U. [2021 (6) KHC 159] in allowing O.P.No.1268 of 2022. The learned counsel would point out that the Family Court did not give opportunity to the appellant for presenting his case. Since the matter was considered in a haphazard manner, there was no consideration as to whether the process of Khula was validly gone through and the requirements of a vali