IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 224 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.561/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER:RESPONDENT IN MC: ---------------------------------------------------- KARUVALLIL FAIZAL, S/O. MUHAMMED, VALAVANNUR AMSOM, NERALA DESOM, PONMUNDAM P.O., TIRUR. BY ADV. MR.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN MC: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. MADAMPATTU FATHIMA, D/O.MUHAMMED, NIRAMARUTHUR P.O., NIRAMARUTHUR AMSOM, TIRUR. 2. FASIL, 1 YEAR (MINOR) REP. IN 1ST RESPONDENT, MOTHER. BY ADV. MR.ESM.KABEER THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.10900/2006 IN RP(FC) NO.224/2006 DISMISSED 11/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 224 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.561/05. The revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of the 2nd respondent. The Family Court after a due consideration awarded a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the child, i.e. till the date of its death on 18.12.2005. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. When the matter came up for admission an interim order was passed wherein the court found that no interference is called for in the quantum of maintenance but wanted to consider the question whether there was any pronouncement of the talaq. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also perused the documents. It has to be stated that it was the revision petitioner who had raised the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 224 OF 2006 -:2:- plea of talaq at the time of evidence. The plea regarding talaq is absent in the counter statement but he had addressed a letter to the Mosque authorities which had been sent back as returned and on producing it marked as Ext.D1 and evidence is adduced. Now when the finding had gone against him it is submitted that the court below should not have entered into such a finding. It was an invited finding by the revision petitioner. A Division Bench of this court in the decision reported in Ummer Farooque v. Naseema 2005 (4) KLT 565 and held that, “ To be a valid talaq it should be for a reasonable cause and be preceded by attempts at reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbitrators and if attempts fails talaq may be effected.” 4. The learned judges also made it very clear that, “It is a popular fallacy that a Muslim male enjoys, under the Quaranic Law, unbridled authority to liquidate the marriage. The Holy Quran expressly forbids a man to seek pretexts for R.P.(F.C.) NO. 224 OF 2006 -:3:- divorcing his wife, so long as she remains faithful and obedient to him.” 5. The court further went on to hold that the mere pronouncement of talaq three times even in the presence of the wife is not sufficient to effect a divorce under Mohammadan Law. So this decision makes it clear that any attempt to pronounce talaq should be preceded by a mediation by two arbitrators and only followed by the same talaq can be pronounced. There is no pleading or there is any mention about the same in Ext.D1 and name of the arbitrators not mentioned anywhere and therefore Ext.D1 cannot be used to hold that there was a talaq. So the court below was right in holding it so. Since this court by an interim order has held that quantum does not call for any interference that also has become final. Therefore the revision petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-