The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has emphasized that husbands must provide strict proof of Talaq (divorce) and sincere reconciliation efforts to avoid maintenance obligations.

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul stated that simply presenting a talaknama (divorce deed) is insufficient, and that pronouncing Talaq in front of two witnesses does not exempt the husband from his marital duties, including maintenance. The court highlighted that witnesses must be "endued with justice" and act as mediators, promoting conflict resolution and a harmonious marital life. This ensures the Talaq process is not misused to shirk marital responsibilities.

The case involved Fayaz Ahmad Wani, who contested an order requiring him to pay maintenance to his estranged wife, Mst. Hameeda, under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (J&K). Hameeda initially filed for maintenance in 2009, and the trial court ruled in her favor with an ex parte judgment. Wani's subsequent appeals were dismissed, leading to a petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. The High Court then directed a trial court reconsideration, resulting in a decision favoring Wani. Dissatisfied, Hameeda filed a revision petition, and the Additional Sessions Judge of Pulwama ordered Wani to pay Rs. 3,000 per month from the date of the original application.

The High Court scrutinized whether Wani's divorce claim could nullify the maintenance proceedings, referencing Shariat law. The court noted that, while Shariat law allows husbands to divorce, this power is not absolute and is subject to conditions aimed at reconciliation. The court found Wani's Talaq did not follow the talaq ahsan procedure, which facilitates reconciliation.

The court outlined the necessary conditions for a valid Talaq: demonstrated mediation efforts by both parties, a valid reason for Talaq, pronouncement in the presence of two just witnesses, and observance of Tuhr. The court found insufficient evidence of genuine reconciliation efforts by Wani and upheld the Revisional Court's decision, which required him to pay maintenance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Fayaz Ahmad Wani v Mst Hameeda [CRMC no.491/2018]