New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India is set to deliberate on a significant question of personal law that could have far-reaching implications for the matrimonial rights of Muslim women in India. The central issue before the apex court is whether a Muslim woman can exercise her right to 'Khula' (a form of divorce initiated by the wife) unilaterally, without the consent of her husband.

The matter reached the Supreme Court following a challenge to a landmark judgment by the Kerala High Court, which had upheld the absolute right of a Muslim woman to terminate her marriage through Khula, independent of her husband’s will.

The legal battle began when a husband challenged a 2021 ruling by a division bench of the Kerala High Court. The High Court had famously restored the right of Muslim women to resort to extra-judicial divorce (divorce outside of court) through Khula.

In that judgment, the High Court had observed that the Holy Quran recognizes the right of both spouses to terminate a marriage. It ruled that while a man has the right of 'Talaq', a woman has the corresponding right of 'Khula'. Most importantly, the High Court held that this right is not dependent on the husband's consent, provided the woman returns the 'dower' (Mahr) or any other property received at the time of marriage.

The husband, aggrieved by this, moved the Supreme Court, arguing that Khula is a "contractual" form of divorce and, like any contract, requires the consent of both parties. He contended that a woman cannot simply "declare" the marriage over without the husband agreeing to the terms.

Under Islamic Law, there are several ways a marriage can be dissolved:

Talaq: Divorce initiated by the husband.
Mubarat: Divorce by mutual consent of both parties.
Faskh: Judicial divorce obtained through a court (Qazi).
Khula: Divorce initiated by the wife.

The debate currently before the Supreme Court focuses on the "extra-judicial" nature of Khula. If a woman wants a divorce and her husband refuses, must she go to court under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, or can she simply invoke Khula through a private notice?

To understand the gravity of the Supreme Court's upcoming decision, one must look at what the Kerala High Court said. The High Court had overruled a 49-year-old precedent (the K.C. Moyin v. Nafeesa case of 1972), which had previously stated that a Muslim woman could only seek divorce through a court of law.

The High Court bench, comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice C.S. Dias, stated:

"The right to terminate a marriage is a right granted by the Almighty. If the husband can exercise it through Talaq, the wife must have an equal right through Khula. Making the wife's right dependent on the husband's consent would nullify the very purpose of Khula."

The High Court emphasized that the only condition for a valid Khula is:

A clear declaration by the wife to terminate the marriage.
The return of the dower (Mahr).
An attempt at mediation or reconciliation before the final split.

The petitioners before the Supreme Court argue that allowing unilateral Khula would lead to "legal chaos." They suggest that Islamic jurisprudence (Shariat) treats Khula as an offer made by the wife which the husband must accept. They argue that if the husband refuses the offer, the wife’s only remedy is to approach a court (Faskh) and prove her grounds for divorce.

They further contend that if women are allowed to divorce without court intervention or husband's consent, it would bypass the protections intended to ensure that divorces are not done on a whim.

A major technical point the Supreme Court will examine is the interplay between the Shariat Act of 1937 and the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act of 1939.

The 1937 Act recognizes Shariat as the rule of decision in cases of marriage and divorce.
The 1939 Act provides specific grounds (like cruelty, desertion, etc.) under which a woman can ask a court for divorce.

The question is: Does the 1939 Act "replace" the right of Khula, or does Khula exist as a separate, independent right that women can use without going to court?

This case is not just about one couple; it is about gender equality within personal laws.

Gender Parity: If the Supreme Court upholds the Kerala High Court's view, it will solidify the "equality of exit." If a man can leave a marriage via Talaq, a woman can leave via Khula.
Access to Justice: Many women find it difficult to navigate years of litigation in family courts. An extra-judicial right like Khula provides a faster, less traumatizing way to leave an unhappy marriage.
Ending Clerical Monopoly: Often, women are forced to go to Shariat Courts or Darul Qazas, which are private bodies with no legal standing. A clear Supreme Court ruling would empower women to exercise their rights directly.

The Supreme Court has appointed senior advocates as Amicus Curiae (friends of the court) to assist in understanding the nuances of Islamic scriptures and previous legal precedents.

The court will have to balance traditional interpretations of Islamic law with modern constitutional principles of dignity and equality. If the court sides with the husband, it might mean that a Muslim woman remains "trapped" in a marriage unless she can prove specific "faults" in a court of law—a burden not placed on the husband.

The Supreme Court's decision will be a landmark in Indian legal history. It follows the path set by the Triple Talaq judgment, where the court stepped in to protect women from arbitrary practices. By deciding on the "consent" requirement in Khula, the court will define whether a Muslim woman in India is truly the master of her own matrimonial fate.

As the legal fraternity and the public wait for the final verdict, one thing is clear: the conversation around personal law reform is moving closer to a rights-based approach, where the autonomy of the individual is given paramount importance.