Case Studies

We present a series of case studies based on the experiences of women who have contacted the MWNUK Helpline. These case studies offer real-life scenarios and highlight practical solutions to the complex issues faced by women, men and couples.

The names and scenarios have been altered to respect anonymity of individuals.

Navigating Shariah Councils

Keywords – Faskh, Khul’, Domestic Abuse, Shariah Council, Mahr

Salma left her husband after enduring ten years of domestic abuse, which ultimately led to his arrest by the police. The case was reviewed at two Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) meetings, and the court issued a protective order preventing him from contacting her.

Salma had been married through a nikah contract, and the agreed Mahr (dower) was £2,000. At the time of the marriage, she received £1,000, leaving £1,000 still owed to her by her husband.

Given the history of domestic abuse, Salma applied for a Faskh divorce through her local Shariah Council. Despite her providing clear evidence of abuse, the Council refused to grant a Faskh. Instead, they treated her application as a request for Khul’, a divorce initiated by the wife with the husband’s consent, requiring her to pay £1,000 to her husband.

This was deeply unjust. Salma had done nothing wrong; she was the victim of sustained abuse. Under Islamic law, if a woman is not at fault, she is entitled to seek a Faskh divorce, and the Mahr remains payable by the husband. In such cases, she should not be asked to return or forgo the Mahr – in fact, she is still owed the outstanding £1,000.

Salma had to fight for her right to a Faskh, rather than accept an unfair Khul’. With support and intervention from the MWN Helpline, she eventually secured a Faskh divorce. However, the process took nearly a year to conclude.

This case highlights a broader issue: not all Shariah Councils offer or properly apply Faskh divorces. In cases where the husband is clearly at fault, women should not be pressured into accepting a Khul’ that requires them to give up their Mahr. They are entitled to a Faskh, which ensures their rights, both in principle and in financial terms, are protected.

Layaan’s Case

Keywords – domestic abuse, communication, khul’, faskh

In her application for a Khul’ divorce, Layaan explained that her husband had been emotionally abusive, controlling, and manipulative throughout their marriage. Due to the distress caused by any direct communication with him, she had asked a male relative to liaise with him on her behalf. She found that her husband used even limited contact as an opportunity to continue his emotional abuse.

Unaware that she could request a Faskh divorce in her circumstances, Layaan applied to a Shariah Council for a Khul’. Her husband claimed, on two separate occasions, that he had not received the divorce papers sent by the Council.

In her application, Layaan clearly described how traumatic and difficult communication with her husband had become. Despite this, a panel member at the Shariah Council suggested setting up a WhatsApp group between Layaan, her husband, and the panel member to discuss the Khul’ and raise any related issues. This suggestion was entirely inappropriate given Layaan’s experience of emotional abuse, and it failed to take into account the harm such communication could cause her.

In reality, Layaan should have been offered a Faskh divorce. Her husband was not cooperating with the process and appeared to be using delays and excuses, such as claiming not to have received paperwork, as a means of maintaining control and continuing his abuse.

This case underscores the importance of recognising coercive and controlling behaviour when women approach Shariah Councils. When a husband refuses to engage constructively or uses the process as a means of further abuse, a Faskh divorce – rather than Khul’, which requires his consent – should be considered to safeguard the woman’s wellbeing and uphold her rights under Islamic law.

Keywords – domestic abuse, reconciliation, inappropriate behaviour

Rabia was a victim-survivor of domestic abuse by her husband. There was also a police report documenting his abuse of their daughter, who later left the family home as a result of the harm she experienced.

To protect herself, Rabia obtained an Occupation Order preventing her husband from entering the home they had once shared. Despite this, when she approached a Shariah Council to request a Khul’ or Faskh divorce, the Council initially failed to take her situation seriously. Relying on claims made by her husband, they asked friends and acquaintances from both sides to intervene and try to reconcile the couple.

This approach was deeply inappropriate given the history of abuse and the ongoing safeguarding concerns. It was only after an elder member of the community became involved, and clearly stated that the Council’s actions were unacceptable, that the reconciliation efforts were halted. The Shariah Council subsequently granted Rabia a Faskh divorce.

This case highlights the need for greater awareness and sensitivity among Shariah Councils when dealing with cases involving abuse. Attempting to push for reconciliation in such circumstances can re-traumatise the victim and further endanger their wellbeing.

Applicants facing this kind of coercion should be encouraged and supported to assert their rights and communicate clearly that reconciliation is neither safe nor appropriate. Shariah Councils must prioritise the safety, dignity, and autonomy of women in all cases, particularly those involving abuse.

Majid’s Case

Keywords – male victim, communication, divorce application fees

Majid had been married for one year when his wife travelled overseas to visit her family. While abroad, she began sending him messages demanding that he relocate to live near her parents and sever ties with his own family and friends, without offering a valid reason. Majid was deeply concerned about these demands, particularly as he had evidence that her parents had been abusive towards her in the past. He suspected that she was acting under pressure or duress.

During their message exchanges, Majid wrote something to the effect that her parents would be the cause of their divorce. However, he did not issue a Talaq nor intend to do so, and his wording did not constitute a valid pronouncement of divorce under Islamic law.

Despite this, his in-laws took his words out of context and approached an individual operating a private ‘Shariah consultancy.’ This individual claimed the authority to intervene in the matter and began pressuring Majid to pay a fee to open communication with his wife and reach a resolution. He was warned that if he did not comply, a decision would be made to grant her a divorce without his consent.

Majid was left confused and distressed. He was not informed of the specific grounds on which the divorce was being pursued, nor the type of divorce being proposed. Although he had evidence that he was not in a financial position to pay the requested fee, he was not allowed to submit this information and was instead given an unreasonably short deadline to make the payment.

Majid expressed that he simply wanted to speak to his wife directly, to hear from her whether she truly wished to end the marriage. However, he was prevented from doing so by her family and felt coerced into complying with the consultant’s demands, with no clear process or mechanism to raise concerns or contest the situation.

This case raises serious concerns about the lack of transparency, accountability, and due process in some informal Shariah advisory or mediation settings. It also underscores the importance of ethical practice, safeguarding principles, and procedural fairness, particularly in cases involving claims of coercion, financial pressure, and contested communication.

Keywords – reconciliation, khul’, return of mahr

Muneeba was married through a nikah contract only. She says her marriage was marked by aggressive and abusive behaviour from her husband during arguments. Seeking to end the marriage, she approached a Shariah Council to apply for a Khul’ divorce.

During the process, her husband told the Council that he wanted to stay married and promised to change. On this basis, the Council encouraged reconciliation efforts. As a result, the divorce proceedings took longer than Muneeba had hoped or expected.

Despite the pressure to reconcile, Muneeba remained firm in her belief that the marriage could not work. It was only when she informed the Council that she intended to approach a different Shariah Council that progress was made. Her husband then agreed to the Khul’ on the condition that she return the monetary value of the gold jewellery she had received as part of her Mahr (dower).

Muneeba sold the jewellery and provided the funds. She was then issued a Khul’ certificate, signed by her husband.

This case highlights the delays and additional burdens some women face in accessing a divorce through Shariah Councils, particularly when reconciliation is prioritised despite clear signs that the marriage is harmful. It also illustrates how financial conditions can be imposed even when a woman is seeking a divorce due to abuse, raising questions about fairness and agency in the Khul’ process.