Khul' and the new family courts promised to ease women's way out of the matrimonial bond, writes Reem Leila But have they?. Six years into her marriage Hoda Osman, a 31-year-old housewife, decided she could no longer go on; she had made enough unconditional sacrifices for one lifetime. Pondering her life and the conditions governing it, she quickly realised all was well except for one thing: her husband; it was as if he wasn't there. She laboured, spent her money, cared for two sons; he was just relaxing. This was less of a discovery than an awakening: she had been living in denial for years. And everyone, starting from her husband's family and friends, confirmed she was an excellent wife. "I really did my best," she recounts. "But my husband's behaviour became unbearable. Responsibility was gradually shifted onto me -- the sole purpose of his job was pocket money; not a penny went into the household, which my father and I supported. My husband was just watching TV. All that he had promised in the way of fun, love and care, a happy family -- all vanished." Osman spoke to him, over and over; and "well, this is me, it's just how I am and I'm not about to change," was all he could say by way of response. Eventually divorce seemed like the only viable answer. "We were just too different, there was too much conflict for us to continue peacefully. And so," Osman says, "I decided I wanted a divorce -- he couldn't go on enjoying what luxury I could afford -- for free. But when I asked my father to intervene, I was confronted with rage: 'How could you think of such a thing -- it was never heard of in this family. And what about your kids, you want them to grow up in a broken home?' he growled. I insisted, my father went on saying no. And so I decided I'd go to court. I was advised that khul' was the fastest option." This law, introduced in 2000, grants women the right to unilateral divorce in return for giving up financial rights and handing back the dowry. Yet in Osman's experience, at least, the law does not work in practice. Four times she appealed, four times she was refused; all her husband had to do was file a petition, citing any reason at all for the marriage to continue: "When family courts were established, last October, I thought my suffering was over. But it turned out to be a vicious circle: my case just keeps moving from one court to the next." And Osman's case is representative. According to lawyer Ashraf Zaki, indeed, the family courts have immeasurably complicated the procedure of khul'. A year ago, he says, the process was far speedier; Khul' cases were resolved in no more than six months. With the family courts in place, no less than 20 months are required; indeed before the paperwork can even start, both parties must attend a 15-day "reconciliation course", with a sociologist and a psychologist. In practice this takes three months -- and procedures have not yet started by the end of it. Heba (not her real name), 39, applied for khul' in May 2004; she is not yet divorced. Her case kept being adjourned for no real reason until, in the new family court, she realised she had to repeat procedures already taken, including notifying her husband of the details of the case: "I discovered that my husband and I had to attend reconciliation sessions; it took them 45 days to set a date. And for two weeks both the sociologist and psychologist were simply trying to intimidate me into not filing a suit. They told me I'd lose everything, that I was better off being married. All it really did was to delay proceedings even further." For his part Zaki attributes such delays to reluctance on the part of the judges: "The vast majority of them do not personally believe in khul' ; they think it's un-Islamic: just because it so happened that in the Prophet's lifetime a woman was granted khul' does not mean the practice should be generalised or legislated for. Unfortunately such legal illiteracy is rife among judges." Abdel-Hadi Ghozzi, another lawyer, agrees: such resistance is possible because the law was not accompanied by an explanatory document delineating its implementation; judges can choose not to apply the law the way they should. "For example," Ghozzi explains, "if either the sociologist or the psychologist is absent from court, that is a reason to adjourn. Yet their presence is not even mentioned in the law itself. The judges insist that they should attend on the pretext that a consultation might prove necessary." A judge might also choose not to apply the law at all. According to Ghozzi, the law stipulates that the wife must return the value of the dowry as it is stated in the marriage contract. "But husbands often object -- the amount written in the contract was not the amount paid, they claim. By law the judge must abide by the contract, yet more often than not he will refer the case to a special investigative committee -- which means another long delay. Likewise, when a husband asks for gifts given to his wife back, even though the law makes no provision for such gifts, the judge will refer the case to a special committee to investigate the matter. All such legal inventions only really emerged within the new family court system. In ordinary courts women were routinely divorced in a six- to eight-month period." In addition to an atmosphere of reluctance, many family courts are not sufficiently equipped to start operating. According to Mohamed Moussa, another disgruntled lawyer, indeed, most consist of one flat with two rooms, with no space for claimants and lawyers to wait and no filing facilities. "Early in the morning, every day, a lorry will arrive, loaded of claimants' files. The lorry is haphazardly emptied by office attendants, risking the loss of important documents." Yet Councillor Osama Ataweya, assistant to the Minister of Justice, insists that, while this was undoubtedly the case of some courts when they first started, work is being done to remedy the situation. By, 2006, he says, new buildings will have been assigned to family courts throughout Egypt: some will be newly built, others will replace old courts, after renovations: "I believe that, by the new judicial year, everything will be far more stable. But it should be noted that the family court system services the entire family, and not only women."
