Kerala High Court
Rafeek vs Jaseena on 30 October, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:81951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2021
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2021 IN OP
NO.553/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR IN THE MATTER OF
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAFEEK, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNHABDULLA,
RESIDING AT PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE,
IRINGATH POST, PAYYOLI, KOYILANDI TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 523.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHARAM.P
SMT.REKHA ARAVIND
SRI.P.G.GOKULNATH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
JASEENA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O ABOOBACKER,
JAS VILLA, KOLAKKATT CHALI POST,
CHELEMBRA VILLAGE, TIRURANGADI TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 634.
BY ADV. SMT. FATHIMA NAZREEN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 30.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:81951
MAT.APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2021
-2-
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant filed OP No.553/2017 before the learned Family Court, Tirur, seeking restitution of his conjugal rights with the respondent, on the assertion that she has been living separately from him from the year 2015 onwards; but this has been dismissed by the said Court.
2. The specific case of the appellant is that the respondent has denied him conjugal company without any valid cause; and therefore, that he is entitled to seek it to be restored.
3. However, the case of the respondent is that she was treated with cruelty and gross indifference by the appellant; and that, in fact, he had even pronounced 'Talaq' against 2025:KER:81951 MAT.APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2021 -3- her, evident from Ext.A3. She says that, as far as she is concerned, she treats herself as a divorced woman from the date when she received Ext.A3; and therefore, that there is no question of any future cohabitation with the appellant and that she cannot be forced to do so.
4. Interestingly, Sri.P.Santharam - learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that, though his client had issued Ext.A3 'Talaq', he did so 'under coercion and duress' from the family of the respondent; and that he had said so when he testified as RW1. He added that, in fact, this stands proved by the factum of his client having issued Ext.B2 nearly a month and a half later, withdrawing the 'Talaq'; and therefore, that it was fully deserving for him to seek that his conjugal rights be 2025:KER:81951 MAT.APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2021 -4- restored.
5. Smt.Fathima Nazreen - learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the appellant is literally trying to play with the emotions of her client, without understanding that she is also a human. She explained that the couple had been living separately from the year 2015, after Ext.A3 'Talaq' had been received by her client; and therefore, that the issuance of Ext.B2 later, purportedly to withdraw the said 'Talaq', could not be a ground for him to seek restitution of conjugal rights. She argued that, if this is allowed, it would be virtually giving benefit to the wrong committed by the appellant himself; and, in any case, that her client has reasonable cause to refuse to cohabit with him, thus rendering a plea for restitution of 2025:KER:81951 MAT.APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2021 -5- conjugal rights untenable.
6. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Family Court and notice that the afore assertion of the respondent has been granted approval. This was done after examining Exts.A3 and B2 and the testimony of the parties on record as PW1 and RW1.
7. We have perused Ext.A3 - which is the 'Talaq Nama' admittedly issued by the appellant to the respondent. This is dated 03.10.2015, in which, he specifically says there are disputes between the parties and that mediation has failed; thus leaving him no other option but to issue 'Talaq'.
8. Pertinently, on 29.11.2015 - which is nearly two months thereafter - he reportedly wrote Ext.B2 letter to the respondent, saying 2025:KER:81951 MAT.APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2021 -6- that he does not intend to continue with the 'Talaq' and wants to reunite with her; but this has been fully disregarded by the latter, saying that it is only an afterthought and an attempt to further harass her.
9. The learned Family Court has considered the worth of Ext.A3, adverting to the argument of the appellant that he had issued it under coercion from the family of the respondent.
10. Apart from the fact that Ext.A3 does not mention any such coercion, the appellant, in Ext.B2, merely says that the former was issued at the 'insistence' of the family of the respondent. One cannot fathom how the issuance of Ext.B2 would give any cause to the appellant to seek restitution of conjugal rights, which he himself had terminated through Ext.A3.
2025:KER:81951 MAT.APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2021 -7-
11. The question relevant here is not whether there was a valid 'Talaq' or otherwise because, it is an issue to be decided in a different proceeding as and when it is initiated; but, whether there is sufficient cause for the respondent in refusing to resume her conjugal duties with the appellant.
12. We have little doubt that it is the unkindest cut for a woman to be served with a 'Talaq Nama'; and consequently, the mere issuance of Ext.B2 as an afterthought, to withdraw the same, cannot heal that emotion, nor can one disregard its damning effect on a human mind. The respondent is an individual, with emotions and feelings equal to any other; and when she says that she was shocked and petrified to receive Ext.A3, we obtain no reason to force 2025:KER:81951 MAT.APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2021 -8- her to stay with the appellant merely because he had issued Ext.B2 - which we also believe was an afterthought only. We say so because, if, as argued by Sri.P.Santharam, Ext.A3 had been issued under duress and coercion, Ext.B2 would have contained the explanation for it; but, on the contrary, it merely says that he had pronounced the 'Talaq' at the 'insistence of the relatives of the respondent', which is, prima facie, difficult to believe.
13. As said above, we are not here to decide whether the 'Talaq' is valid or not, but whether the issuance of Ext.A3 would create a valid reason for the respondent to keep away from the company of the appellant.
14. We find that this is so; and that the respondent was wholly justified in not being 2025:KER:81951 MAT.APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2021 -9- willing to restore the matrimony.
In the afore circumstances, we find no cause in this Appeal; and, consequently, dismiss it, with costs to the respondent.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv JUDGE
2025:KER:81951
MAT.APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2021
-10-
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 749/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT DATED 06.11.2024 PRONOUNCING FASKH ANNEXURE 2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF HANDWRITTEN DOCUMENT DATED 06.11.2024 DECLARING THAT RESPONDENT HAD PRONOUNCED FASKH