JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff in O.S.No.1344 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Thiruchirappalli, is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The appellant filed the said suit seeking the relief of declaration that his pronouncement of talaq on 01.05.2000, 07.06.2000 and 06.07.2000 had terminated his marriage with the defendant. The defendant filed written statement controverting the plaint averments. Based on the rival pleadings, the learned trial Munsif framed the necessary issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one Haniba was examined as P.W.2. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15 were marked. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1. No document was marked on her side. Considering the evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, the learned trial Munsif by judgment and decree dated 08.02.2007 decreed the suit as prayed for.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed A.S. No.237 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruchirappalli. The first appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009 reversed the decision of the trial Court, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

4. This second appeal was admitted on 30.06.2010 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the first appellate Court is right in not considering that the long separation by the defendant/wife from the plaintiff/husband without any reason is a sufficient cause for pronouncing talaq by the plaintiff?

2. Whether the first appellate Court was right in expecting reasons for pronouncing talaq?

3. Whether the demand by the respondent/wife who abandoned the handicapped unmarried sister and aged mother is not a just cause, as held by the Apex Court, for pronouncing talaq after four years of separation? ”

5. The respondent was served and she entered appearance through counsel. When the matter was taken up on 07.02.2022, there was no appearance on the side of the respondent. While filing Vakalath, the counsel had given his mobile phone number and the Court Officer made a call to the said number. There was no fruitful response, though someone attended the call. The appeal was directed to be called today (09.02.2022). This morning, when the appeal was taken up, there was no representation again. Hence, the respondent was set ex-parte. The case was passed over and then it was taken up for disposal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and restore the decision of the trial Court.

7. Since there was no response on the side of the respondent, I undertook an independent scrutiny of the pleadings, evidence on record and also the judgments passed by the Courts below.

8. Let me address the legal issues first. No doubt, Muslim marriage is one of contract. The husband has the power to terminate the same by pronouncing talaq. Though in text books, it has been noted that a Muslim husband can divorce his wife by his unilateral action and without the intervention of the Court, its rigour and harshness have been mitigated by the Courts over the years. From Shamim Ara Vs. State of U.P. ((2002) 7 SCC 518), one can infer the proposition that there must be reasons substantiated in justification of talaq and that there must be plea and proof that efforts at reconciliation preceded the talaq. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in A.S.Parveen Akthar V. Union of India ((2003) 1 LW 370), following the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts held that a Muslim husband cannot divorce his wife at his whim and caprice and that the divorce must be for a reasonable cause and must be preceded by attempts by arbitrators nominated by the families of the parties and it is o