( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the learned single Judge of this court who has found himself not able to follow a judgment of Division Bench of this court reported in Syed Jamaluddin v. Valiam bee, 1975 (2) APLJ 20 : (1975 Cri LJ 1884 ). The reasons for not following this judgment are the judgment of various other High Courts. We have gone through those judgments and we do not find any ground to come to a conclusion that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Syed jamaluddin v. Valiam Bee (1975 Cri LJ 1884) (supra) needs reconsideration and we find ourselves in agreement with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court.

( 2 ) THE question referred to Division bench by the learned single Judge is. "whether even if the fact of divorce is true, whether it would be invalid and cannot be acted upon on the ground that it was effected by the husband on unreasonable grounds and that it was not proceeded by any efforts for reconciliation". The learned single Judge referred to various judgments of other High Courts and views of some academicians and he was of the view that the effort to reconcile was a precondition for pronouncement of divorce by a husband. The facts of the case before the learned single Judge reveal that the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of criminal Procedure before the Magistrates court claiming maintenance for herself and for her child. The husband put up a defence that he had divorced his wife by triple pronouncement of talaq on 3-7-1995 in presence of elders viz. Mohd. Moulana and ahmed Hussain. He also pleaded that the said fact was reduced into writing and the said talaqnama executed by the husband was sent to the house of the wife intimating her about the talaq. The elders intimated the same to the wife, but the wife and her parents refused to receive Mehr amount and also the maintenance for the iddat period. Thereafter the husband made a publication in the Rehbar-e-Telengana daily newspaper on 1-8-1995. The husband had sent a demand draft in the name of his wife drawn on Andhra Bank, Banswada on 3-8-1995 towards Mehr amount of Rs. 2051. 00 and for three months iddat period maintenance of rs. 600/- @ Rs. 200. 00 p. m. A letter was sent by registered post, but neither the demand draft was accepted nor was the letter accepted. The Magistrate held that divorce as pleaded by the husband was not proved and granted maintenance to the wife and the child. In revision the learned Sessions judge decided the issue as to whether the plea of divorce in the counter filed by the husband would operate as divorce between the spouses from the date of filing of the counter. The order passed by the Magistrate on 4-9-1997 in M. C. No. 3 of 1995 was quashed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge held that the divorce pleaded was not valid under Mohammedan law. The basis for his finding was that before the husband could exercise his right to effect divorce it must be proved that there was an attempt for making reconciliation which is a prerequisite under Muslim Law. In support of this view the learned Sessions judge relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court reported in Saleem Basha v. Mumtaz Begam, 1999 (1) ALD (Cri) 182 : (1998 Cri LJ 4782 ). The learned Judge of madras High Court had relied upon a judgment of the Gauhati High Court. The gauhati High Court had quoted a passage from the book "islamic and Comparative Law quarterly. " While noting the judgments in ahmad Kasim v. Khatun Bibi, AIR 1933 Cal 27; A. Yousuf v. Sowramma, AIR 1997 Ker 261; Fuzlunbi v. K. Khader Vali, AIR 1980 sc 1730; Zeenat Fatema, 1993 (2) Crimes 853 : (1995 AIHC 416) (Gauhati); Rashid;v. Md. Iqbal Anwar and M. Rahiman v. Sabiha khatoon, 1994 (3) Crimes 236 : (1994 Cri lj NOC 217) (Cal) and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Syed jamaluddin v. Vallan Bee (1975 Cri LJ 1884) (supra), the learned single Judge framed two questions for consid