When Husband and Wife Agree to Part Ways, Why Should the Court Become a Wall? Rajasthan High Court Delivers a Landmark Verdict

Jodhpur: In a significant and thought-provoking judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that courts should not stand in the way of personal liberty when a marriage has irretrievably broken down. Setting aside an order of the Medta Family Court, the Jodhpur Bench granted legal recognition to a Muslim couple’s mutual divorce, observing sharply that this was a case of “husband and wife agreeing, but the court refusing.”

The Case in Brief

The case involved Ayesha Chauhan and Wasim Khan, residents of Pali district, who were married in 2022. Soon after the marriage, deep ideological differences emerged, making cohabitation impossible. Following the principles of Islamic law, the couple completed the process of divorce over three tuhar periods and, on August 20, 2024, executed a Mubaratnama—a mutual divorce deed.

When the couple approached the Medta Family Court seeking a formal decree of divorce on this basis, their petition was unexpectedly rejected, forcing them to knock on the doors of the High Court.

“Miyan-Biwi Razi, Par Qazi Nahi”

A Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit expressed clear disapproval of the lower court’s approach. In a reportable judgment, the Bench opened its observations with a striking metaphor, stating that the case perfectly fit the old saying: “When husband and wife agree, but the ‘Qazi’ (court) does not.”

The High Court held that once both parties have unequivocally decided to dissolve their marriage, the court’s role is not to erect technical barriers but to acknowledge the legal status of that decision.

Personal Consent vs. “Public Interest”

Clarifying an important point of law, the High Court underlined that Mubarat is a valid and recognized form of divorce under Muslim Personal Law. Justice Monga noted that the Family Court appeared to be under a mistaken belief that “public interest” could override the clear, voluntary consent of two adults seeking separation.

“A relationship that has completely collapsed cannot be sustained by force,” the court observed, adding that there is no justification in dragging on a marriage that exists only on paper.

A Clear Message

Quashing the Medta Family Court’s order, the Rajasthan High Court emphasized that declaring the marital status of consenting adults is a judicial duty—not an opportunity to create obstacles. The verdict draws a fresh line in family law jurisprudence, reinforcing individual autonomy and dignity over unnecessary procedural rigidity.

This landmark ruling is being seen as a strong reminder that courts exist to deliver justice—not to become walls between people and their lawful choices.