Manisana, J.:- This revision petition arises from an order of the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Guwahati made on 7.8.92 in Case No FC (Cril) 2. Facts, - The case of the petitioner, in brief, is thus. The petitioner Zcenat Falema Rashid married Md. Iqbal Anwar, on 2.12.87, according to Muslim rites. After the marriage they lived as husband and wife at husband's residence. She had born him a son on 3.11.89. After that she was ill-treated by her husband and her-in-law. She, therefore, instituted a criminal case on 13.8.90 being case No 87 of 1990. Finding no other alternative, she had to leave her husband's house and had to file a criminal case for getting back her properties and those properties were recovered on 31.8.90. She also filed a case under section 125, CrPC, against her husband on 29.8.90 claiming maintenance for herself and her minor child. Md. lqbal Anwar (the respondent) contested the case by filing written statement. His main defence is that he had divorced his wife, the petitioner here in, on 31.8.90. 3. The Family Court has held that there had been a divorce duly effected and, therefore, claim for maintenance would be determined under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. With regard to maintenance of child, the Family Court has directed that interim maintenance granted would continue pending final disposal of the case. Hence this petition. 4. The question which arises for consideration is whether there had been a divorce duly effected. Under the Mahomcdan Law, divorce by talak may be effected either orally (by spoken words) or by a written document called a talaknama. No particular form of words is prescribed for effecting a talak, but the words of divorce must indicate an intention to dissolve the marriage (sec Mulla's Principles of Mahomcdan Law). 5. Mr. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that a Mahomcdan husband cannot divorce his wife at his whim and caprice. The next question which therefore, arises for consideration is whether a Mahomcdan hus­band can divorce his wife at his whim and caprice. In Sarabai vs. Rabiabai, ILR 30 Bom 537, it has been held that there may not be a particular cause for divorce, and mere whim is sufficient. It is good in law, though bad in theology. The next question which therefore, arises for consideration is whether a Mahomcdan hus­band can divorce his wife at his whim and caprice. In Sarabai vs. Rabiabai, ILR 30 Bom 537, it has been held that there may not be a particular cause for divorce, and mere whim is sufficient. It is good in law, though bad in theology. In Astia Bibl vs. Kadir Ibrahim, ILR 33 Mad 22, it has been held that, although an arbitrary unreasonable exercise of divorce of marriage is strongly condemned in the Quran and is treated as spiritual offence, it docs not affect the legal validity of a divorce duly effected by husband. In Ahmed Kasim Molla vs. Khalun Bibi, ILR 59 Cal S33, the Calcutta High Court has held that any Mahomedan husband may divorce his wife at his mere whim and caprice. However, Single Judge of this Court has, in Jiauddin Ahmed vs. Anwara Begum, (1981) 1 GLRJ58,he\d that divorce must be for a reasonable cause, and that must be preceded by an attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbitrator, one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his side. Learned Single Judge, after considering the cases cited above, the observations of some of the High Courts, the mandates of the Quran, and the treaties, on Mahomedan Law of various authors and scholars, came to the above conclusion. This decision of the learned Single Judge was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Rukia vs Abdul Khalique, (1981) 1 GLR 375. 6. Mr. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that in view of the earlier decisions of other High Courts that a Mahomcdan husband may divorce his wife at his whim and caprice, the decisions of this Court are required to be reviewed for the settled position of law prevailing for a considerable long period, that is to say, longstanding legal position, should not be disturbed. Mr Barua has further submitted that the matter may be referred to a larger Bench. 7. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by Mr. Barua. We approach the mailer as follows. Under the Quran, the marriage sciatic is to be maintained as far as possible and there should be conciliation before divorce (see nol254ofvoi 1 of Holy Quran by A. Yusuf Ali). 7. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by Mr. Barua. We approach the mailer as follows. Under the Quran, the marriage sciatic is to be maintained as far as possible and there should be conciliation before divorce (see nol254ofvoi 1 of Holy Quran by A. Yusuf Ali). Therefore, the Quran discourages divorce and ii permits only in extreme cases after pre-divorce conference. There­fore, a Mahomedan husband cannot divorce his wife at his whim and caprice. The question then is. Whether, if divorce by talak is made arbitrarily, it should be treated as spiritual offence only? Under the Mahomcdan Law, marriage though regarded as a civil contract between a man and a woman, they become husband and wife after solemnization of the marriage and (heir respective rights and obligations are regulated by the rules under relevant law. This being the position, marriage is the basis for social organization and foundation of legal rights and obligations. The modern concept of divorce is also that the matrimonial status should be maintained as far as possible. Under Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984, cases relating to matrimonial status of any person are within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The Family Court aims at conciliation and persuasion of parties to arrive at a settlement. For these reasons, if a Mahomcdan husband divorces his wife at his whim and caprice, it would not only be a spiritual offence but it would also affect the divorce. In the above view of the matter, a Mahomedan husband cannot divorce his wife at his whim or caprice, that is, divorce must be for a reasonable cause, and it must be preceded by a pre-divorce conference 10 arrive at a settlement. Therefore, we are in agreement with the decision of this Court, and we respectfully are unable 10 agree with the view taken by the other High Courts that divorce can be made at whim and caprice of the husband. The decisions of this Court were made by the Single Judge in the year 1978 and by the Division Bench in the year 1979, before 14/15 years ago. Therefore, the question of unsettling the settled position of law does not arise. 7. The next question which arises for consideration is whether divorce by talak has been proved. The decisions of this Court were made by the Single Judge in the year 1978 and by the Division Bench in the year 1979, before 14/15 years ago. Therefore, the question of unsettling the settled position of law does not arise. 7. The next question which arises for consideration is whether divorce by talak has been proved. The case of the husband is that he had divorced his wife by a written document in presence of the witnesses and he handed over talaknama to his wife. Thereafter, a photo state copy of the talaknama was made over to Sadar Kazi of Guwahati for registration of the divorce. A photo state copy of talaknama has been filed. It is settled that a photostat copy of a document is admissible as secondary evidence, if it i s proved to be genuine (see Ashok Dulichand vs Madhav-Lal Dube, AIR 1975 SC 1748 ). In the present case, the foundation for admission of the photostat copy as secondary evidence has not been laid. No attested copy of the entry of registration of divorce has been produced. Therefore, the husband has failed to prove alleged talaknama. However, in the evidence of the husband he has stated that he also made pronouncement of the word "talak" three times. There is no evidence or material to corroborate that talak was effected orally. That apart, the written statement indicates that the case is solely based on talaknama. Under the circumstances, it is held that the talak pleaded has not been proved. Further, we have concluded that the divorce must be for reasonable cause and it must be preceded by pre-divorce conference to arrive at a settlement. There is no evidence that there was a pre-divorce conference. In that view of the mailer, the husband has failed 10 prove the alleged divorce by talak. 8. Mr. P.K. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent, has concluded that, even if talak pleaded is not proved, the husband has sliced that she had been divorced not only in his which statement; but also in his deposition and, therefore, the divorce would be deemed 10 have been from the dale of filing of the written statement or from the date of statement on oath. The learned counsel has, in order to support his contention, relied on the decisions reported as Asmat Ullah vs. Mst Khalun Vnnisa, AIR 1939 All 592; Wahab Ali vs Qamro Bi, AIR 1951 Hyd 117; Chand Bi vs Bandeslia, AIR 1961 Bom 121 ; Abdul Stiaktmr vs Kulsum, 1962(1) CrLl 247; and Mohammad All vs Fareedunnisa, AIR 1970 AP 199. 9. In the above cited cases, wife made claim for maintenance under section 488 (old) : 125 (new). CrPC. In those cases, it has been held that, where in a proceeding snarled under section 488 (old) : 125 (new), CrPC, by a Mahomedan wife against her husband for her maintenance, the husband stales in the statement that he had already divorced his wife and the Court comes 10 the conclusion that divorce pleaded is not proved, inch such a statement in the written statement itself operates as an expression or declaration of divorce by talak, and the divorce would be held to lake effect at least from the dale on which the which statement was filed by the husband. The reason for the decision is that the statement made by the husband orally in his deposition or in his written statement that he had divorced his wife is an acknowledgement of talak alleged to have effected by. him already and, therefore, the divorce would be held to have effectal least from the dale upon which the acknowledgement is made. 10. We respectfully submit that we are unable to agree with the decisions in the above-referred cases for the following reasons. Written statement is a pleading. Pleading is one thing and proof is another. Pleading is formal allegations by the parties of their respective claims and defences to provide notice of what is to be expected at trial. Proof is establishment of a fact by evidence or matters before the Court or legal tribunal. Where the parties are in dispute as regards a material fact, an averment in the pleading does not constitute evidence, as what is stated in the pleading is recital of past event which is required to be proved. Under the Evidence Act, if a material fact pleaded is not proved, it follows that the Court considers or believes that the fact does not exist. Therefore averment in the pleading cannot be used in favour of the maker. Under the Evidence Act, if a material fact pleaded is not proved, it follows that the Court considers or believes that the fact does not exist. Therefore averment in the pleading cannot be used in favour of the maker. This being the position, statement made by the husband in his pleading or deposition that he has divorced his wife is recital of past event, and, if talak pleaded is not proved such statement shall be of no consequence. In that view of matter, if statement made by the husband that he had divorced his wife in his pleading or deposition is considered as an acknowledgement of divorce by talak, it will be against the policy of law, and it would also amount to furnishing or providing evidence of talak, which is against the rule of pleading and proof. That apart, in view of our conclusion above that divorce must be for a reasonable cause and ii must be preceded by a pre-divorce conference, if the statement made orally in evidence or in the written statement that the husband had divorced his wife in a proceeding under section 125, CrPC, will be a valid talak from the dale of making statement cannot be sustained as it would be contrary to our conclusion. For the reasons staled above, the contention of Mr. Barua is rejected. 11. In the result, the order of the Family court made on 7.8.92 in Case No FC (Cril) 111/92/74/M/90 in so far as findings with regard to divorce is set aside. The mailer is scan back for disposal afresh in accordance with law. 12. The revision petition is allowed.