The essential ingredients for proving and establishing 'Talaq' were emphasized, and it was held that the mere existence of a document like talaqnama is not sufficient to render a valid Talaq. The stages it is preceded by are required to be pleaded and proved before the Court, if disputed by the wife.

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 31 August 2007 made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad (ASJ) in criminal revision No. 58 of 2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Judge has reversed the judgment and order dated 29 September 2006 made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Karad, in misc. criminal application No. 506 of 2005. The JMFC had dismissed the respondent No. 1's application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Judge has allowed the respondent No. 1's application and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No. 1, apart from Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Hence, the present petition.

2. Mr. R.S. Khadapkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sessions Judge has exceeded the bounds of revisional jurisdiction, in as much as the Sessions Judge has reassessed the findings on record and reversed the finding of fact rendered by the JMFC. In any case, Mr. Khadapkar submitted that the material on record overwhelmingly makes it clear that the petitioner had validly divorced the respondent No. 1 and thereafter in terms of the provisions contained in Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act, 1986, there was no obligation on the part of the petitioner to give any maintenance to the respondent No. 1 beyond the Iddat period. Mr. Khadapkar further submitted that in the present case there was documentary evidence in the form of talaqnama, acceptance of amounts and articles by the respondent, which establish without doubt the factum of divorce and acceptance thereof by the respondent No. 1. For all these reasons, Mr. Khadapkar submitted that the Sessions Judge, in making the impugned order has clearly exceeded jurisdiction.

3. Ms. Tejasweeta Bhosale, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the documentary evidence has been rightly disbelieved by the Sessions Judge. She submitted that the JMFC was not right in himself making comparison of signatures and concluding that the documents contained the signature of the respondent No. 1. That apart, Ms. Bhosale, relying upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dagdu Chotu Pathan vs. Rahimbi Dagdu Pathan & Ors., 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 602 : 2002 (3) ALL MR 265 (F.B.) : 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1230 (F.B.), submitted that the essential ingredients for proving and establishing 'Talaq' were non existent in the present case and therefore the Sessions Judge has rightly upheld the respondent No. 1's claim for maintenance. She submitted that there is no jurisdictional error whatsoever in the making of the impugned judgment and order.

4. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

5. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Khadapkar that the Sessions Judge has reassessed material on record, thereby exceeding the bounds of revisional jurisdiction. The Sessions Judge, in this case, has merely applied the legal position clarified by the Full Bench of this Case in the case of Dagdu Pathan, 2002 (3) ALL MR 265 (F.B.) : 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1230 (F.B.) (supra), and on the said basis, held that there was no legal material on record to sustain the finding of Talaq.

6. Incase of Dagdu Pathan, 2002 (3) ALL MR 265 (F.B.) : 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1230 (KB.) (supra), the Full Bench of this Courts upon consideration of several precedents, commentaries and religious texts, paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 served thus:

"27. Pleadings before the Court, though made on oath, either in writing or in oral form, when disputed by the wife, are required to be proved and when it comes to proving all these pleadings the process is governed by the common law viz. the Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act etc. and mere statement on oath, either in writing or in oral form itself does not prove the factum of divorce as well as valid or effective divorce. If the