##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:6197-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 160/2025

Smt. Tabbassum W/o Shahe Alam, Aged About 31 Years, R/o

Sayyado Ka Was Uparkota Jalore Tehsil And Distt Jalore

Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Shahe Alam S/o Munnawar Shah, R/o Gall Kaafla Bazar Mohalla

Gol Masjid Ke Pass Ward No 40 Tonk Disttt Tonk Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Prajapat

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

03/02/2026

1. Appeal herein is directed against a judgment and decree

dated 06.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Jalore

whereby the learned Family Judge in exercise of its jurisdiction

under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, dismissed the Civil

Suit filed by the appellant wife.

2. The appellant–plaintiff filed a suit before the learned Family

Court, Jalore, seeking a declaration of dissolution of marriage

under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The marriage

between the parties was solemnized on 16.12.2016 as per Muslim

rites. Owing to marital disputes and mental cruelty, the appellant

returned to her parental home and sought khula. However, the

respondent instead pronounced talak on 02.04.2023, 12.05.2023,

and 13.07.2023, which was duly reduced into writing as a

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:48:59 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:30:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6197-DB] (2 of 5) [CMA-160/2025]

talaknama. The appellant relinquished her claims towards mehar,

iddat maintenance, and any right in the respondent’s movable and

immovable property.

2.1 Despite service of summons, the respondent chose not to

appear and the matter proceeded ex parte. The appellant led oral

and documentary evidence in support of her case, however, by

judgment and decree dated 06.11.2024, the learned Family Court

dismissed the suit.

3. Hence, the instant appeal.

4. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by

learned Family Court would reveal that what weighed on the mind

of learned family Judge was the ostensible lack of jurisdiction

vested with the family Court as it is stated that a suit for

dissolution of marriage cannot be instituted by women under

Islamic Law, in case a valid divorce has already taken place

between the parties.

5. The learned Family Court returned a finding that marriage

between the parties already stood dissolved according to Islamic

law in terms of Talaq-e-Hasan and thus, no decree would have

been granted by the learned Family Court once again dissolving a

pre-dissolved marriage. We are unable to persuade ourselves with

the view adopted by the learned Family Court.

6. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court had an

occasion to deal with another matter titled Ayasha Chouhan Vs.

Waseem¹ Khan wherein speaking for this Court, it was held as

under :-

“14. In our opinion, the above test seems to have be met in present

case. The appellant and the respondent both categorically pleaded

and unambiguously stated before the Court that during the

1 CMA 1319/2025, Rajasthan High Court

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:48:59 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 10:30:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6197-DB] (3 of 5) [CMA-160/2025]

subsistence of the marriage, the defendant pronounced talaq upon the

plaintiff in accordance with Muslim law—first on 08.06.2024, second

on 08.07.2024, and finally on 08.08.2024, each pronouncement being

made during separate Tuhar periods (distinct menstrual cycles). The

plaintiff accepted the said pronouncements. Consequently, the marital

relationship between the parties stood dissolved with effect from

08.08.2024, in accordance with Muslim Shariat and customs. This

being the ultimate fact situation, we are of the view that the learned

FamilyCourt erred in holding that the appellant had failed to prove

that the defendant had duly divorced her and thus erroneously

decided issue No. 2 against the appellant. We, therefore, reverse this

finding and decide issue No. 2 in favour of the appellant.

15. The case can also be examined