Kerala High Court
Mujib Rahiman Kaja Hussain vs Aline Nahas on 30 January, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 10TH MAGHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2023 IN OP NO.2737 OF 2022
OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MUJIB RAHIMAN KAJA HUSSAIN, AGED 52 YEARS
13/202, EDAYAR ST. MANGAVE, PALAKKAD - 678 001. NOW
RESIDING AT 1 B, SOORYA MANZIL, HARITHAPURI ROAD,
OLAVAKKODE. P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678002
BY ADV SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ALINE NAHAS, AGED 46 YEARS
49/2011, THE MIRAGE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, PIN - 682024
BY ADV SMT.M.SHAJNA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:7740
MAT.APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, in OP No.2737/2022, on various grounds.
2. Smt.K.V.Bhadra Kumari - appearing for the appellant, argued that the impugned judgment suffers from errors because, it has granted imprimatur to the alleged "Khula" declared by the respondent without following the imperative requirements, as declared by this Court in Asbi K.N. v. Hashim M.U. [2021(6) KLT 292]. She explained that, the learned Family Court could not have granted an order in favour of the respondent, without verifying whether the "Mehar" and other articles gifted by her client to the respondent had been returned; and that, when it is admitted that it was not so, it could not have offered approval to the "Khula" as it has done. She further argued that the evidence and materials on record itself will establish that no mediation between the parties had been effectively done before the 2026:KER:7740 MAT.APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2024 3 "Khula" had been declared; and that, for that reason also, going again by Asbi K.N. (supra), the "Khula" ought not to have been approved. She prayed that this appeal be, therefore, allowed.
3. In response, Smt.M.Shajna - appearing for the respondent, contended that, as rightly found by the learned Family Court, there were several counseling sessions and mediations between the parties but to no avail; and further that, in Ext.A2 "KhulaNama" itself, her client had offered to return the "Mehar" and had intimated the respondent that he may tell her the place and time for delivery of the same. She argued that, even today, her client is willing to return the Mehar - which she asserted to be in 21 gms in weight of gold; and argued that the learned Family Court has not committed any error.
4. We have considered the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the pleadings, materials and evidence available. Though we have not called for the Trial Court Records from the learned Family Court, the copies of all the documents on record have been made available by the learned 2026:KER:7740 MAT.APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2024 4 counsel for the respondent; and the learned counsel on both sides conceded that it can be relied upon by us, in delivering this judgment.
5. Before we evaluate the afore recorded rival contentions, we must record that it is also the specific case of Smt.Bhadra Kumari that her client had not refused to participate in the enquiry before it, as has been recorded by the learned Family Court; and further that he had filed an objection, wherein, he detailed, in paragraph 28 thereof, the articles comprising of gold, diamonds and such other valuables, which he is entitled to receive from the respondent. Her specific argument is that the learned Family Court did not consider her client's objections at all, but proceeded to record that he did not participate in the enquiry, though he had subsequently filed IA No.1/2024 explaining that his learned counsel had sought for an adjournment of the case, but which request was declined, with the matter then being disposed of in his absence by the learned Court. She reasserted that, for these reasons also, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. When we read the judgment of the learned Family 2026:KER:7740 MAT.APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2024 5 Court, it has recorded ineluctably that the appellant herein did not participate in the enquiry. The answer to this by Smt.Bhadra Kumari - his learned counsel, is that though his learned counsel was available on the day, when the judgment was delivered in Court, in the morning, she asked for an adjournment till afternoon and was under the impression that this has been allowed. She asserts that, the learned Family Court, however, proceeded to dispose of the matter in the morning session itself, recording incorrectly that the appellant had refused to participate in the enquiry.
7. Coming to the second limb of argument of the appellant, that the Mehar has not been returned, we see that the learned Family Court has found from Ext.A2 - as we also see - that there is an offer therein to return the same at a place and time to be notified to her. There is no contest to this, though Sri.Bhadra Kumari asserts that this is not sufficient going by Asbi K.N. (supra).
8. Finally, as regards the question of mediation and counseling between the parties, the statement of the respondent clearly speaks about several such sessions; and her 2026:KER:7740 MAT.APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2024 6 vehement assertion is that the appellant had refused to give any answer, which remains without any refutation.
9. Coming to the question whether the appellant herein had appeared for the enquiry before the learned Court, it is without doubt that his statements - that his learned counsel was available in the morning, who then sought adjournment till afternoon - is a self serving one, which is not proved or corroborated by any material on record. True, he says that he, thereafter, filed IA 1/2024; but looking at it, it is only an application seeking that the respondent herein be recalled and that she be subjected to cross examination. There is not a whisper therein that he is ready to offer his statement, or to be part of the enquiry; but his attempt appears to be merely to cross examine the respondent without any reason stated. In Asbi K.N. (supra), this Court has made it clear that the proceedings before the learned Family Court in a matter like this is summary in nature, without any right being reserved to the parties to cross examine or to reexamine witnesses under the Evidence Act. The statement of the respondent herein could have been certainly countered by any 2026:KER:7740 MAT.APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2024 7 statement to be offered by the appellant; but which he chose not to do so; which fact is fortified by the averments in IA No.1/2024, wherein, he does not say that he is ready to offer his statement, but sought only to cross examine the respondent herein.
10. As regards the issue relating to "Mehar", this Court in Muhammed Ashar v. Muhsina [2025 (7) KHC 119 (DB)] had made it clear that:
"In Asbi.K.N. (supra), there are three methods of assessment declared by this Court to be done by the learned Family Court. The first is by evaluating whether there was offer by the wife to return the "Mehar" in the "Khula Nama" itself; second, whether it is so stated in the communication if issued; and finally by recording the statement of the parties".
11. As evident from the admitted facts of this case, the respondent, in the Khula Nama, made her offer explicit that she was willing to return the Mehar at a place and time to be notified to her by the appellant. Ineluctably, the offer to return the Mehar is thus available in the Khula Nama itself and consequently, the requirement in law as declared in Muhammed Ashar (supra) stands fully satisfied. .
2026:KER:7740 MAT.APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2024 8
12. In such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Family Court, particularly when, as again clarified in Asbi K.N. (supra), "Khula" is only an extra judicial remedy, which can be contested by the respondent in a proper manner, the liberty for which has been left to litigants in the said judgment itself.
In summation, we see no reason to intervene with the impugned order in any manner; and consequently, dismiss this appeal, with costs to the respondent.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu