The husband's contradictory pleas and lack of evidence for valid talaq establish his liability to pay maintenance to the wife and children.

Rs.1,500/- to each of you, i.e. to the wife and to each of the two children. This is the order under challenge by the respondent in M.C.No.9 of 2012 / revision petitioner herein.

2. The respondents herein aged 31, 12 and 12 respectively filed the a petition for maintenance claiming a sum of Rs.3,000/- each.

3. It was the case of the wife that on account of the demand for dowry, she was not permitted to live with her husband and despite, the premature birth of respondents 2 and 3, the revision petitioner did not take care to take them back. It was alleged that the revision petitioner is the owner of an Auto and also a dealer in foreign goods earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/-and despite having sufficient means, the revision petitioner refused and neglected to maintain the respondents herein.

4. The claim of the wife and children are opposed by the revision petitioner on the ground that the wife is not eligible to claim maintenance as she is living separately on her own accord and that he is only earning a sum of Rs.150/-per day as an Auto driver / Coolie and therefore, he is not in a position to maintain the children.

5. It is claimed that the wife is also ineligible to claim maintenance, as the husband has granted Mutalaq to his wife on 29.06.2011.

6. The Court below rejected all the contention of the husband and directed the husband to pay maintenance. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.

7. The main contention in the revision petition is that as per Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., the wife is not eligible to claim maintenance. Three grounds are mentioned in Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. to make the wife incompetent to claim maintenance. They are,

a) if the wife is living in adultery or;

b) if the wife refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason or;

c) if the husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent.

8. The husband has taken mutually contradictory pleas, which are destructive of each other. If the case of the husband is that he pronounced Mutalaq and divorced his wife, there is no question of the wife refusing to live with the husband without sufficient cause. Therefore, it is for the Court to find out whether the husband has proved the fact that he has divorced his wife. The only material placed on record is the three notices addressed to the wife intimating her that the husband is pronouncing triple-talaq. Whether sending of notices alone can be construed as amounting to the marital relationship having been brought to a grinding halt. Three conditions required to pronounce triple-talaq have been the subject matter of judicial decision and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamim Ara vs. State Of U.P. & Another, 2002 AIR SCW 4162, laid down the conditions to be followed / proved for the purpose of proving the triple-talaq. The relevant observation reads as under:

“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 wife's family and the other from the husband's; if the attempts fail, talaq may be effected. (Para 13).

In Rukia Khatun's case, the Division Bench stated that the correct law of talaq, as ordained by Holy Quran, is:

(i) that 'talaq' must be for a reasonable cause; and

(ii) that it must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his. If their attempts fail, 'talaq' may be effected. The Division Bench expressly recorded its dissent from the Calcutta and Bombay view which, in their opinion, did not lay down the correct law.”

9. This view, which is binding upon all Courts, has been quoted by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of A.S.Parveen Akthar vs. The Union Of India and has specifically highlighted the Paragraph No.13 of the judgment in Shamim Ara, which reads as under:

“13. The