Validation of 'Talaq' requires strict adherence to evidential standards, which were not met in this case.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kollam, in OP(Others)No.901/2021, since it has dismissed his plea for declaration of validity of the ‘Talaq’ issued by him to the respondent.

2. The specific case of the appellant is that he had issued three 'Talaqs' to the respondent - namely Exts.A3, A3(a) and A3(b), dated 24.09.2020, 24.12.2020 and 24.03.2021 respectively; and that this has been communicated to the respondent properly. He asserts that he sent Exts.A3, A3(a) and A3(b) to the respondent by post, but concedes that this was not with acknowledgement due. He, however, maintains that the Jama-Ath of the respondent were issued copies of the same and relies upon Exts.X2 and X2(a) in substantiation; further, saying that his Jama-Ath recognized the divorce, which is evident from their own certificate produced on record as Ext.A2. He contends that, in spite of this, the findings of the learned Family Court, that the 'Talaqs' have not been properly proved are untenable; and hence that he is entitled to have this Appeal allowed.

3. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.K.N.Muhammed Thanveer – learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.Hemalatha – learned counsel for the respondent, argued that, even going by the admitted case of the appellant, he had not issued Exts.A3, A3(a) and A3(b) to her client, though he makes a feeble attempt in establishing it saying that it was sent by registered post, but without Acknowledgement Due. She argued that, even the postal receipts to show that Exts.A3, A3(a) and A3(b) were sent by post to her client, have not been produced; though he seems to be relying upon Exts.X2 and X2(a) receipts, saying that the same proves that it was issued to her client’s Jama-Ath. She showed us that, however, Ext.X2 is dated 26.07.2020 - which is two months before even the first 'Talaq' had been issued; while, Ext.X2(a) - though being a postal receipt dated 25.09.2020, has not been proved because no one from her client’s Jama-Ath had been summoned by the appellant for such purpose. She argued that, in the absence of the most mandatory requirements under law, to establish valid 'Talaq', being absent in this case, this Appeal can never be allowed.

4. We find from the records that the learned Family Court took the matter to trial, in which, the parties deposed as PW1 and RW1 respectively, with the appellant calling PW2 also as a witness on his side. In addition, the appellant marked Exts.A1, A2 and A3 on his side; while, no documents were produced by the respondent, though the Court has accepted Exts.X1, X2 and X2(a) as court documents.

5. The undisputed pleadings and evidence on record render it incontestable that it is the specific case of the appellant that he had issued Exts.A3, A3(a) and A3(b) ‘Talaqs' to the respondent on three different dates and had issued copies of the same to her Jama-Ath also.

6. However, no document to show that any of the 'Talaqs' issued to the respondent has been produced by the appellant; though, in Exts.X2 and X2(a), there is an indication that he had sent some postal articles to her on 24.12.2020. Of course, this corresponds with Ext.A3(a); but even if it is so assumed that it was the second 'Talaq', it would not further his case in any manner because, he has lead no evidence to prove that he had issued Exts.A3 or A3(b) to the respondent.

7. Interestingly, the appellant’s explanation i