Our client had been married for many years under both religious and civil law. Over time, she experienced sustained coercive and controlling behaviour from her husband.

Following a serious incident of violence which led to police involvement, she decided to separate. Her husband refused to accept the separation.

Financial position and the family's assets

Our client was a qualified professional and the family's primary financial provider. Her husband, although also professionally qualified, did not work and made no financial contribution to the household. The matrimonial assets were modest, comprising the family home (in which the children continued to reside with our client), a property generating minimal rental income, and a business which only our client was able to operate.

The religious divorce impasse

Our client sought a religious divorce through the appropriate community channels. Her husband refused to grant one voluntarily, and she was advised that a khula-style divorce could be obtained if she paid compensation. She offered a substantial sum, more than the matrimonial assets could accommodate without selling the family home or taking on further debt, but was prepared to do so in order to secure her freedom and protect her children. Her husband refused this offer, and shortly afterwards the sum demanded increased significantly further.

The proceedings

We issued proceedings on our client's behalf, including applications for protective injunctions under the Family Law Act 1996, Children Act 1989 applications concerning the children's welfare, and divorce and financial remedy proceedings under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. A non-molestation order was maintained throughout.

A civil resolution without a religious one

Over a lengthy period of litigation, during which our client incurred substantial legal costs, she remained religiously married to her husband despite having secured wide-ranging protective and financial relief from the civil courts. The court repeatedly raised the outstanding religious divorce at hearings, and, despite direct judicial encouragement shortly before the final hearing, the husband continued to refuse to pronounce the religious divorce formula voluntarily, maintaining that under Sharia unless the words came willingly from the bottom of his heart, she would never be free.

Why this matters

This case illustrates the structural imbalance that can arise where a religious divorce lies entirely within one spouse's control, and the practical and emotional toll that withholding it can take, even where the civil courts have granted extensive protective and financial relief.