Under Mohammedan Law, divorce must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and wife by two mediators - one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his side. In the absence of such an attempt, the divorce cannot be considered valid.

This Criminal Revision is directed as against the order dated 28-11-1995 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, in Crl. M.P. 2922 of 1995.

2. The revision petitioner, who is the husband and the only respondent in this revision is his wife.

3. It is the contention of the revision petitioner/husband that he has divorced his wife, namely, the first respondent in Crl. M.P. No. 2922 of 1995 by "talaq" on 30-11-1992, and he is not liable to pay maintenance for the period subsequent to the divorce on 30-11-1992 except for the Iddat i.e, a period of 4 months 10 days subsequent to the date of divorce, and the fact of divorce was also communicated to the wife. Jamath and the Muthavalli of the Mosque by registered post, and the respondent herein is employed as "Aya" in Javahar School, Thiruvalluvar Road, Neyveli, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1, 687.50 and she is no more the wife of the revision petitioner from 30-11-1992 which is the date of divorce, and so the maintenance ordered earlier should be cancelled.

4. The respondent herein, who is the wife of the revision petitioner, filed a counter statement before the trial Magistrate repudiating the averments contained in his petition and claiming that she was not informed of the divorce, and the "talaq" pronounced by him is a false allegation, and the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance, and so the application filed by him for cancellation of maintenance amount deserves a dismissal.

5. On the above pleadings and after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties the learned Judicial Magistrate at Neyveli came to the conclusion on 28-11-1995 in Crl. M.P. No. 2922 of 1995 that the "Talaq" pronounced by the revision petitioner is not valid under law, and the revision petitioner has only pronounced the "Talaq" for the sake of the petition for cancellation of the maintenance, and the those circumstances the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner for the cancellation of maintenance under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code.

6. Aggrieved against the said findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, the revision petitioner/husband has come up before this Court by filling this criminal revision.

7. After bearing the learned counsel for both the parties the point that arise for determination in this criminal revision are as follows :-

(1) Whether the "Talaq" pronounced by the revision petitioner on 30-11-1992 divorcing his wife viz., the respondent herein is valid under law ?

(2) Whether the order of maintenance passed as against the revision petitioner has to be cancelled under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for any one of the reasons ?

(3) To what relief is the revision petitioner entitled ?

8. Point No. 1 :-

It is not in dispute that originally a petition was filed by the respondent/wife along with her minor child for maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code in M.C. No. 7/1989, and the same was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate at Neyveli on 12-10-1992, and as against the said order of dismissal the respondent and her child preferred a revision before the High Court in Criminal R.C. No. 77 of 1993, and the matter was settled between the parties, and in pursuance thereof an order was passed directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 350/- as maintenance to his wife and a sum of Rupees 200/- to his minor child every month. During the course of the arguments before the High Court in Crl. R.C. No. 77/1993 it was brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the revision petitioner herein has divorced his wife by pronouncing "talaq" and so His Lordship Justice Rengasamy, J., in his order dated 10-3-1995 in Criminal Revision Case No. 77/1992 has observed as follows :-

"It is brought to my notice that the respondent herein has divorced his wife by pronouncing Talak and the counsel Mr. Balasubramanian represents that the respondent may not be liable to pay maintenance for the period sub