The pronouncement of talaq must adhere to the legal framework as ordained by the Holy Quran and the Supreme Court's decisions.

Challenging and impugning the order dated 28. 2006 passed by the I Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, in M.C.No.561/2004, this criminal revision case is focussed.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:-

(a) The respondents herein filed the M.C.No.561 of 2004 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., before the I Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, seeking maintenance as against the revision petitioner herein. Inasmuch as the revision petitioner resisted the claim, enquiry was conducted.

(b) During enquiry, the first respondent herein(wife) examined herself as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 was marked. The revision petitioner herein(husband) examined himself as R.W.1 along with one Amjathkhan as R.W.2 and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.

(c) Ultimately, the Family Court awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.1000/- per month in favour of R1 herein(wife) and Rs.500/- per month in favour of R2 herein(child), payable by the revision petitioner herein.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said awarding of maintenance, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:-

The Family Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the revision petitioner being the husband was ready and willing to take back the wife and it was the wife, who was responsible for the rift in the matrimonial relationship between the two. Ignoring the oral and documentary evidence in support of the revision petitioners plea, the Family Court simply awarded such maintenance. The finding of the Family Court relating to talaq pronounced by the revision petitioner is untenable.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in awarding maintenance in favour of the respondents herein, payable by the revision petitioner herein.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds of revision, would advance his argument to the effect that the talaq pronounced was in order and that it was communicated also. However, without applying the law, the Family Court, simply held as though there was no proper talaq.

7. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would cite the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court:

(i) 2003-1-L.W.363 – SHAMIM ARA VS. STATE OF U.P.AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus:

"Held: The correct law of talaq as ordained by the Holy Quran is that talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be preceded by attempts at reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters – one from the wifes family and the other from the husbands; if the attempts fail, talaq may be effected.

.(ii) 2003-1-L.W.370 – A.S.PARVEEN AKTHAR VS. 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, AND OTHERS, certain excerpts from it would run thus:

". . . . Intimation of divorce made to petitioner through her father that her husband had pronounced Talaq in the presenceh of two witnesses in a simple sitting in Talaq-ul-biddat or Talaq-i-badai form – Plea of petitioner that it was not recognised in Quoran and that the Act offends Arts.14, 15 and 21 did not sanction this sinful form of Talaq which is grossly injurious to human rights and is violative of Art.21.

Held: Prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted – Petitioners apprehension that notwithstanding the absence of cause and absence of efforts at reconciliation, this form of talaq may be considered to be valid, is based on a misapprehension of the law – Law as declared by the Apex Court is that talaq must be for a reasonable cause, and must be preceded by attempt at reconciliation and only if it fails, talaq may be effected. Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act set out grounds on which muslim woman can claim divorce – Act does not deal with proced