Triple talaq pronounced in one sitting, whether orally or through a talaqnama, without prior reconciliation and prescribed procedure, is invalid and does not dissolve a Muslim marriage. A talaqnama, by itself, does not prove talaq unless the factum of pronouncement and compliance with Muslim law prerequisites are established by evidence. Presumption of service of talaqnama under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable; Section 27 of the General Clauses Act has no application to talaqnama. In the absence of a valid talaq, the woman continues to be the wife and is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Even assuming divorce, a Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. beyond the iddat period, until remarriage.

advocatemmmohan

Muslim Law — Talaq — Validity — Triple Talaq

Triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) pronounced in one sentence or at one time, whether orally or in writing, without observing mandatory conditions of reasonable cause, prior reconciliation and prescribed intervals, is not a valid talaq in Muslim law and does not dissolve the marriage.
(Paras 30, 63(i)–(iv))

---

Muslim Law — Talaq — Preconditions — Reconciliation

For a valid talaq, it is mandatory that there must be an attempt of reconciliation by two arbiters, one chosen from the family of the wife and the other from the family of the husband, and such attempt must precede pronouncement of talaq.
(Paras 21–22, 27, 35–36, 63(v))

---

Muslim Law — Talaqnama — Evidentiary value

A talaqnama by itself, whether treated as a record of an oral talaq or as a deed of divorce, does not prove a valid talaq unless the factum of pronouncement and compliance with mandatory preconditions under Muslim law are proved by evidence.
(Paras 30–33, 37, 63(iv))

---

Muslim Law — Talaq — Proof of pronouncement

Pronouncement of talaq must be proved by cogent oral or documentary evidence. Mere plea in written statement or production of talaqnama is insufficient when the wife disputes the factum of talaq.
(Paras 21–22, 31–33, 37, 63(iv))

---

Muslim Law — Talaq — Communication

Communication of talaq to the wife is mandatory. Where service of talaqnama by registered post is disputed and the endorsement of “refusal” is rebutted by evidence, talaq cannot be said to have been communicated.
(Paras 38–40, 49–56, 63(vii))

---

Evidence Act, 1872 — Presumption — Rebuttable

Presumptions under Section 114(e) & (f) of the Evidence Act regarding service by post are rebuttable. Once rebutted by sworn testimony, the burden shifts back to the party relying on the presumption to prove actual service.
(Paras 40–44, 49–50, 56)

---

General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 27 — Applicability

Presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to service of talaqnama, as no Central Act or Regulation mandates service of talaq by post.
(Paras 45, 49, 63(viii))

---

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125 — Maintenance — Muslim wife

A Muslim wife, where no valid talaq is proved, continues to be a wife and is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
(Paras 63(ix), 65)

---

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125 — Divorced Muslim woman

Even a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. beyond the iddat period, for her whole life, unless she remarries.
(Paras 58–61, 63(iii))

---

Revisional Jurisdiction — Interference justified

Where the revisional court ignores settled principles of Muslim law and evidence regarding talaq and erroneously denies maintenance, interference in revision is warranted and restoration of the Magistrate’s order is justified.
(Paras 34–36, 56, 65)

---

ANALYSIS (PARA-WISE SYNTHESIS)

1. Core controversy (Paras 13–16)
   The dispute centred on (i) validity of talaq allegedly pronounced by the husband and (ii) entitlement of the wife to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. Law on talaq (Paras 18–27)
   The Court analysed classical Muslim law texts and binding Supreme Court precedents, particularly Shamim Ara v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Shayara Bano v. Union of India, holding that talaq must be for reasonable cause, preceded by reconciliation, and duly proved.

3. Nature of talaqnama (Paras 29–33)
   The talaqnama relied upon showed triple talaq in one go. The Court held that what is impermissible orally cannot be validated in writing.

4. Failure to prove reconciliation (Paras 35–36)
   Alleged mediators were not arbiters chosen one from each family, nor was reconciliation proved by documentary evidence.

5. Failure to prove pronouncement and communication (Paras 37–56)
   Pronouncement was not proved by independent evidence. Service of talaqnama by registered post was rebutted by the wife’s evidence, and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act was held inapplicable.

6. Maintenance law (Paras 58–63)
   Relying on Danial Latifi v. Union of India and Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan, the Court reaffirmed that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is available even to a divorced Muslim woman beyond iddat.

7. Result (Paras 65–67)
   Revisional court judgment was set aside; Magistrate’s order granting maintenance was restored.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Triple talaq pronounced in one sitting, whether orally or through a talaqnama, without prior reconciliation and prescribed procedure, is invalid and does not dissolve a Muslim marriage.

2. A talaqnama, by itself, does not prove talaq unless the factum of pronouncement and compliance with Muslim law prerequisites are established by evidence.

3. Presumption of service of talaqnama under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable; Section 27 of the General Clauses Act has no application to talaqnama.

4. In the absence of a valid talaq, the woman continues to be the wife and is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

5. Even assuming divorce, a Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. beyond the iddat period, until remarriage.