Does a Khul' divorce take effect when the husband's agent pronounces the divorce after receiving the Khul' payment on behalf of the husband, knowing that the husband does not desire the separation?

The khul' (divorce at the instance of the wife) takes effect as an irrevocable divorce (talaq ba'in), even if the husband does not utter the words of divorce, and what is considered is the husband's consent. If the husband deputizes someone to receive the money on his behalf, then the khul' has taken place and the wife is irrevocably divorced from him. The absence of the brothers and maternal uncles as witnesses to the contract is of no consequence, as it is permissible for the more distant guardian to contract the marriage even in the presence of the closer one, unless the latter is compelled (which is the father). The closer relative does not have the right to annul the marriage unless the contract was for someone who is not a suitable match (ghayr kuf'). The issue here is the khul' with a non-relative, which is valid if he voluntarily offered the money and the husband consented. It appears that the husband consented to this and received the money or deputized someone to receive it on his behalf, so it became binding upon him. The wife's family blocking his path is not compulsion; rather, he could have taken his case to the court, but he preferred the money and the khul' of his wife, so she became irrevocably divorced from him because khul' is considered an irrevocable divorce. It is advised to consult the Sharia courts.