A statutory body like a Wakf Board is mandated to consider and dispose of representations regarding the refusal of religious committees to recognize valid judicial decrees, ensuring the exercise of fundamental rights by the affected party.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent, the Kerala State Wakf Board (the ‘Board’ for short), to consider Ext.P3 representation dated 05.02.2026 made by the petitioner and pass orders therein within a time frame to be prescribed by this Court.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is a Muslim woman who lawfully obtained dissolution of her marriage by way of declaration of “Khula” in O.P. No. 936 of 2025 on the files of the Family Court, Malappuram, by Ext.P2 judgment dated 08.12.2025. By virtue of the decree, the petitioner is legally divorced and entitled, under Muslim Personal Law, to contract a 2nd marriage. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent Mahal Committee, seeking issuance of a divorce certificate based on the Family Court decree for the purpose of conducting 2nd Nikah. However, despite production of the copy of the court order, the Mahal authorities refused to issue the certificate, on the premise that they are only bound by the personnel law and custom and that the Family Court order declaring “Khula” is not recognised as a valid dissolution of marriage under the personnel law or custom. The refusal is arbitrary and amounts to disregard to judicial pronouncement. Aggrieved by the unjust denial, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 05.02.2026, before the Executive Officer, Kerala State Wakf Board, Manjeri, requesting appropriate directions to the Masjid authorities. However, the said representation has not been considered or disposed of till date. The inaction of the respondents is effectively preventing the petitioner from exercising her lawful right to remarry, thereby infringing her fundamental right to life and personal liberty and legal rights, causing grave prejudice.

3. On 08.04.2026, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board took notice on admission for the 1st respondent. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to respondents 2 and 3, returnable within two weeks. Though the notice sent to the 2nd respondent was returned signed, none appeared for the said respondent. As per the office note made from the Registry, the signed acknowledgement of the 3rd respondent has not been received. However, considering the limited relief sought in the writ petition, the declaration of service of notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Board.

5. By Ext.P2 judgment dated 08.12.2025, the Family Court, Malappuram, in O.P.No.936 of 2025 declared that the marriage of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein contracted on 29.01.2022 in accordance with the Islamic rites has been dissolved by the petitioner pronouncing ‘Khula’ on 18.07.2025, in accordance with Islamic Shariat Law. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the production of a copy of Ext.P2 judgment, the 2nd respondent refused to issue a divorce certificate, which is necessary for her to contract a second marriage. Ext.P3 representation dated 05.02.2026 made by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, requesting appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent, has not been considered by the 1st respondent. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that the 1st respondent is ready to take an appropriate decision on Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, without expressing anything on the legal and factual conte