- (1.)THIS revision case has been filed by the respondent in M. C. No. 20 of 1998 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, secunderabad.
(2.)THE respondent herein filed the maintenance Case seeking maintenance. The maintenance was granted to her. Subsequently, M. P. No. 411 of 2006 was filed by the revision petitioner for cancellation of the maintenance on the ground that the first respondent was divorced by pronouncing talaq in the presence of Qazi and two witnesses. The lower Court dismissed the said Application by observing that the pronouncing of Talaq of PW. 1 is not in accordance with law, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is not entitled for maintenance cannot be accepted. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the Maintenance case preferred the present Revision case contending that when once he proves the divorce, the first respondent is not entitled for any maintenance, therefore, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside.
(3.)THE Supreme Court, in Shamim ara v. State of U. P. , AIR 2002 SC 3551, approved the decision in Mst. Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khalique Laskar, (1981) 1 Gauhati lr 375, wherein it was held:
" (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. "