Allahabad HC Sets Aside Family Court Order That Dismissed Uncontested Talaq-e-Hasan Declaration Suit

The Lucknow Family Court dismissed an uncontested declaration suit on jurisdictional grounds despite both parties admitting the Talaq; the Allahabad High Court reversed the order and declared the parties divorced.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow, comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi — with the judgment authored by Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi — has allowed a first appeal by a Muslim husband whose declaratory suit seeking recognition of Talaq-e-hasan was dismissed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 8, Lucknow. The Family Court had dismissed the suit on 20 May 2025, holding that the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even though the wife had not challenged the Talaq and had herself expressed willingness for a divorce decree. The High Court found this reasoning perverse, set aside the impugned order, and declared the matrimonial status of both parties as divorced.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Syed Mohd. Momin Akhtar and Saima Faruqi, both Sunni Muslims, were married on 1 February 2022 in Lucknow in accordance with Muslim personal law. The respondent-wife left the matrimonial home on 12 September 2023 and moved to her mother's residence. The parties have remained separated since.

The appellant-husband approached Darul Kaza Faringi Mahal, Aishbagh, Lucknow, seeking conciliation. When the respondent appeared before the Darul Kaza on 22 May 2024, she refused reconciliation and demanded Talaq. The appellant accordingly resorted to Talaq-e-hasan — three pronouncements sent at monthly intervals through registered post. The first notice was dispatched on 22 July 2024, the second on 22 August 2024, and the third on 25 September 2024. All three were duly received by the respondent.

After the third pronouncement, the appellant sought a formal opinion from Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulema, Lucknow. On 7 October 2024, that institution issued an opinion stating: “the matrimonial bond has already come to an end, and there is no possibility of reconciliation or renewal of Nikah.” The appellant also paid Rs. 1,00,000 as Mehar to the respondent, which she acknowledged receiving.

Seeking a formal judicial record of the dissolved marriage, the appellant filed a declaratory suit under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, on 29 October 2024, before the Family Court, Lucknow, registered as Matrimonial Case No. 3872 of 2024.

How the Family Court Disposed of the Suit

The respondent filed a written statement on 24 January 2025 in which she did not dispute the factum of Talaq. In paragraph 16 of her written statement, she explicitly stated she had no objection to a decree being passed. She further appeared as DW-1 and, in her affidavit dated 26 March 2025, accepted the Talaq and herself prayed for a decree of divorce.

Notwithstanding this, the Family Court dismissed the suit on 20 May 2025. It reasoned that since neither the respondent nor any other person had challenged or denied the Talaq, and since the plaintiff had not stated in the plaint why a formal declaration was needed, the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Family Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaratory decree in those circumstances.

The appellant challenged this order by way of First Appeal No. 119 of 2025 under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Division Bench was whether a Family Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, can endorse an extra-judicial Talaq and declare the matrimonial status of parties as divorced, in proceedings that are wholly uncontested.

The appellant's counsel argued that the suit was not filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, nor did it raise any issue of jurisdiction or cause of action under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The grounds on which the Family Court dismissed the suit were, according to counsel, entirely inapplicable to the nature of the proceedings.

The respondent's counsel filed a Vakalatnama before the High Court but placed no reply or objection on record.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench began by examining the statutory framework. Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, as noted by the court, mandates that for Muslim parties, the rule of decision in matters of dissolution of marriage — including Talaq — shall be Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). The bench also noted that Talaq-e-bid'at, or instantaneous triple Talaq, has been rendered void and punishable under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Talaq-e-hasan, which involves three pronouncements at monthly intervals, is a distinct and recognised mode under Muslim personal law and was not affected by the 2019 legislation.

On the role of the Family Court, the bench referred to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which includes within the court's jurisdiction suits or proceedings for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person. The bench cited the Kerala High Court's ruling in Asbi K.N. v. Hashim M.U., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3945, with approval. That judgment held that the Family Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 7, is competent to endorse an extra-judicial divorce and to declare the marital status of parties. The enquiry in such proceedings is summary in nature. The Family Court need only ascertain whether a valid pronouncement of Talaq was made and whether effective conciliation was attempted beforehand. Adversarial procedures such as examination-in-chief and cross-examination are neither essential nor desirable.

The bench observed that extra-judicial divorce under Muslim personal law is complete the moment the husband pronounces Talaq in the prescribed manner. Judicial endorsement is sought only to create a public record of that divorce, not to confer validity upon it. In proceedings where the opposite party does not dispute the claim, the Family Court is required to treat the matter as uncontested, satisfy itself that a valid Talaq was pronounced, and pass a formal order accordingly.

Turning to the admitted facts of the present case, the bench found that both parties had acknowledged the Talaq in their pleadings and evidence. The respondent had not only failed to deny the Talaq but had affirmatively requested a divorce decree in her own affidavit. The Family Court itself had, in its order, returned a finding that Talaq-e-hasan between the parties was proved and undisputed. Despite that, it dismissed the suit.

The bench was categorical: the Family Court's reliance on Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure was wholly misplaced. The suit was not a suit for specific performance or injunction; it was a proceeding for declaration of matrimonial status squarely covered by Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Dismissing a suit for declaration on grounds that do not apply to such proceedings, after recording that the Talaq was proved and uncontested, was “totally misplaced and unwarranted” and rendered the impugned order perverse and unsustainable in law.

The bench also made a broader observation: every member of a civilised society is entitled to a clear and definite marital status, particularly where that status arises from applicable personal laws or recognised customary practices. In appropriate circumstances, judicial endorsement of marital status is not merely desirable but imperative.

The court added that any declaration granted under Section 7(b) or Section 7(d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, endorsing an extra-judicial divorce, would remain subject to challenge in appropriate proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction, should any aggrieved party choose to contest the validity of the Talaq at a later stage.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed First Appeal No. 119 of 2025. The impugned judgment and order dated 20 May 2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 8, Lucknow, in Matrimonial Case No. 3872 of 2024 was set aside. The declaratory suit filed by the appellant was decreed. The matrimonial status of the parties was declared as divorced by the High Court on 3 July 2025.