Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M. P. No. 102 of 1943 on the file of the Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras, filed by his wife for recovering maintenance from him. The case of the petitioner before the lower Court was that she was the lawfully wedded wife of the counter-petitioner, that they were living as husband and wife for two and a half years and that her husband has neglected and failed to maintain her and that she was entitled to be maintained by him. His plea was that she had been divorced by him. There was a thalaknama executed in the presence of a khazi attested by two witnesses. The, Magistrate found that it was not a valid divorce because it had not been communicated to the wife. It was pointed out even in the very ruling relied on by him, namely, Kathuyumma v. Urathel Marakkar AIR1931Mad647 that there could be a valid thalak in the absence of the wife but it would come into operation only from the date on which the wife comes to know of it. In Sarabai v Rabia Bai (1906) 30 Bom. 537 it was pointed out that a thalak if it is executed in the presence of a khazi and attested by witnesses, though not communicated to the wife, would b