Basant,J.

(i) Does a divorce valid under the Muslim Law ipso facto extinguish the liability of the husband under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') to pay maintenance to his wife even when it is admitted or proved that amounts due under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') have not been paid?

(ii) Is unilateral pronouncement of divorce without offering any reason and without any attempt for reconciliation by the arbiters as mandated by Ayat 35 of Sura IV of the Holy Quran valid under the Muslim Law after the decision of the Supreme Court in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. (2002 (3) KLT 537 SC)?

2. These two questions of crucial relevance and contextual significance arise for consideration in this RP(FC) which has been referred to a Division Bench under Sec.3 of the Kerala High Court Act by a Single Judge (one of us). The learned counsel for the contestants have been heard in detail. As it was felt that larger questions of public importance are involved, we had requested the learned counsel who are willing, to offer assistance to us as amicus curiae and accordingly M/s M.P.M. Aslam, K.I. Mayankutty Mather, P.K. Ibrahim, C.S. Dias, Rajith and V.G. Arun have offered assistance to us. We record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered to us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties as also the learned counsel who rendered assistance to us as amicus curiae.

3. The relevant facts can be summarised in a nutshell. Marriage between the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife is admitted. They are referred to hereinafter as the `husband and wife'. There was acrimony in their matrimony and as early as in the early eighties the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirur, in M.C.No.6/81 had directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.60/-per mensem to the respondent/wife. That order was passed on 18/3/82. We are not adverting to the claim of the children as the same has now become irrelevant.

4. Long later vide order dated 16/5/88, which was passed on the basis of an agreement between the parties, the claim for enhancement was allowed under Sec.127 of the Code and the husband was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.80/-per mensem to the wife.

5. Subsequently in 1998 another application under Sec.127 of the Code was filed claiming further enhancement of maintenance. That petition was transferred to the Family Court, Malappuram in accordance with the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and by order dated 19/9/01 in M.C.No.870/99 the learned Judge of the Family Court granted enhancement of maintenance. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.500/-per mensem is payable thereafter by the husband to the wife.

6. The maintenance amount for the period from 23/4/03 to 24/4/04 (Rs.500/-x 12 months = Rs.6,000/-) remained unpaid and this obliged the wife to file C.M.P.No.1006/04 on 29/4/04 for recovery of the amount under Sec.128 of the Code. In that petition, a counter statement was filed by the husband raising the contention that he had pronounced talaq on 8/12/03. Admittedly, it was a unilateral pronouncement of talaq. There is no contention that any attempt for reconciliation by the arbiters, in accordance with the mandate of Ayat 35 of Sura IV, had taken place. It is also admitted that no cause was shown in the communication of talaq to justify the pronouncement of talaq. Ext.D1, it is claimed by the petitioner, was sent to the respondent. It was not served and was returned with an endorsement "Not known. Returned to the sender". Ext.D2 is the copy of the letter allegedly sent to the Khasi and Ext.D3 is the acknowledgment received from the Khasi of the local Mosque for receipt of the intimation of talaq by him.

7. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the alleged divorce has not been proved satisfactorily.