12 hours ago
Only courts can grant 'khula', not religious bodies, rules Telangana HC
Telangana HC
HYDERABAD: In a significant ruling, the Telangana high court has clarified that 'khula'-a form of divorce initiated by Muslim women under Islamic law-is a legitimate right, but must be legally processed only through courts, and not by religious bodies.
This ensures legal clarity and enforceability of the divorce, the court said.
A division bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao on Tuesday upheld a family court's decision in Feb 2024 in a case where a woman had obtained a 'khula' from her husband, a businessman from Chandrayangutta. The husband had challenged the divorce, arguing that it was granted by a religious body, Sada-e-Haq Sharai Council, which he claimed had no legal authority.
The ruling comes close on the heels of the Supreme Court order in April this year, which reaffirmed that while a Muslim woman had the right to seek 'khula', it was ultimately the courts, specifically family courts, that had the authority to grant or validate a 'khula'. The apex court also clarified that while a wife could initiate the process, the husband could challenge it in court, and the court would ultimately decide on the validity of the 'khula'.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here]
Esseps
Learn More
Undo
You Can Also Check:
Hyderabad AQI
|
Weather in Hyderabad
|
Bank Holidays in Hyderabad
|
Public Holidays in Hyderabad
'Khula' valid form of divorce: HC
In its order, the high court ruled that while 'khula' was indeed a recognised form of divorce under Muslim personal law, religious bodies such as a mufti or sharia council could not issue binding divorce certificates. Only courts, or a qazi officially appointed under the law, had the legal power to declare the end of a marriage, it said.
The case arose after the woman, a homemaker, approached the Sada-e-Haq Sharai Council seeking khula, when her husband refused to grant it.
The council issued a 'khulanama' (divorce certificate), which the husband later challenged. The family court upheld the divorce, noting that proper legal procedures had been followed.
The high court dismissed the husband's appeal, stating that once a woman seeks khula and reconciliation fails, the matter must be decided by the family court.
The bench made it clear that khula did not require the husband's consent, nor could it be finalised by a religious institution. Judicial oversight was essential to give the divorce legal standing and protect the rights of both parties, it said.
However, the high court disagreed with one part of the family court's earlier judgment-that a mufti could issue a valid khulanama. It said only courts or legally authorised officials could issue such declarations.
