Muslim woman gets 'khula' divorce, Kerala court orders return of gold & money to husband

Kannur: In a rare ruling, the Family Court in Kannur has directed a Muslim woman who dissolved her marriage through khula (divorce initiated by a woman upholding her right to cancel marriage) to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation to her husband and to return all the gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage, or their equivalent monetary value.

Family Court Judge R J Baiju passed the order relying on a 2021 Kerala High Court judgment, which held that a Muslim wife has the right to dissolve her marriage through khula by returning the mahr and other valuables received from her husband, along with appropriate compensation.

The case was filed by a 30-year-old man from Chala against his 25-year-old wife, a native of Pappinissery. He sought a declaration that the khula pronounced by her was invalid and requested the return of gold and diamond ornaments and other assets worth ₹7.22 lakh, along with ₹25 lakh as compensation.

The couple was married in July 2022 at Haddad Juma Masjid in Pappinissery. At the time of marriage, the husband was employed in New Zealand. According to his petition, the woman’s family had approached him with the proposal, as she preferred a partner working in a Western country and had expressed willingness to join him abroad.

Three weeks after the wedding, the husband returned to New Zealand, assuring that he would soon arrange for his wife to join him. He later obtained her visa, arranged travel, accommodation and other facilities, allegedly spending over ₹5 lakh. However, when informed of the arrangements, she reportedly expressed reluctance to travel and gradually withdrew from communication. Eventually, she informed him that she was unwilling to continue the marital relationship.

The petitioner further alleged that she had developed a relationship with another person and had refused cohabitation from the early days of the marriage. On April 29, 2023, she issued a Khula Nama declaring that she had dissolved the marriage under Muslim personal law.

The husband contended that she had not offered to return the mahr or the gold ornaments and gifts given at the time of marriage, thereby violating the mandatory conditions for a valid khula. After issuing a legal notice seeking withdrawal of the declaration, which she refused, he approached the court.

In her counter affidavit, the woman alleged that she had been misled about the husband’s family background and values. She claimed that the marriage was filled with pain and distress, that she could not tolerate what she described as “anti-Islamic” practices, and that she was not provided protection or maintenance. She further alleged that the husband treated the marriage as a business arrangement and was interested in marrying a nurse for prospects abroad. She maintained that the khula was pronounced under such circumstances.

She stated that she had expressed willingness to return the mahr, but alleged that the husband’s family had demanded ₹50 lakh as compensation and refused to accept it. In her Khula Nama (written agreement), she had declared her readiness to return the mahr, and therefore argued that the dissolution was legally valid.

However, the court rejected her contentions. In its order, the court observed that the respondent was “not an ordinary, rustic village woman” and found her reasons for refusing to join her husband abroad, despite arrangements being made, to be “flimsy and unbelievable.” The court also noted that her allegations of cruelty and harassment were unsupported by any complaint to authorities.

Concluding that the conditions for a valid khula had not been satisfied, the court directed her to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation and return the gold ornaments weighing 75.524 gms and the diamond necklace received at the time of marriage, or their monetary equivalent.

Advocate P P Mubashir Ali, who represented the petitioner, described the ruling as one of the rarest of its kind in matters relating to khula under Muslim personal law. He said the judgment would serve as an important precedent for similar cases where disputes arise over the return of mahr, gold ornaments and other valuables following unilateral dissolution of marriage by the wife.