Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 31. 1. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Ujjain in Criminal Revision No. 30/2001 arising out of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ujjain in Misc. Cr. Case No. 31/1997 on 4. 12. 2000. ( 2. ) IN narrow compass, the case of the parties before the Court below was that the non-applicant No. 2 Smt. in the year 1992. Out of their wedlock, non-applicant No. 2 Aasifa-daughter was born. The non-applicants submitted an application Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Trial Court on the grounds inter alia that the applicant was ill-treating the non-applicant/wife for demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her parents. She was carrying eight months pregnancy and during that period on 14. 4. 1997, she was beaten and turned out of the house. The non-applicants prayed for grant of maintenance Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- per month respectively for them since they were not having any means to maintain and as such, the non-applicants are not able to maintain themselves. ( 3. ) THE applicant/husband appeared before the Trial Court and submitted that on 10. 4. 1997, he had divorced his wife non-applicant No. 1 and she had also relinquished her rights for maintenance. The applicant also submitted that in view of the provision of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Muslim Women Act) the application Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. was not maintainable unless the husband and wife both give consent for filing the application Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. and decision thereon. ( 4. ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class dismissed the application Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. of the non-applicants against which, they went up in revision and the learned Revisional Court has allowed the revision of the non-applicants holding that the learned Trial Court has committed error of law and facts by accepting the factum of valid divorce in accordance with the Muslim Law, because prior to divorce there was no reconciliation proceeding between the parties. For this legal proposition, the learned Revisional Court has relied upon the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in Saleem Basha v. Mrs. Mumtaj Begum, II (1999) DMC 206-1998 Cri. For this legal proposition, the learned Revisional Court has relied upon the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in Saleem Basha v. Mrs. Mumtaj Begum, II (1999) DMC 206-1998 Cri. L. J. 4782. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a decision of this Court passed in the case of Mohd. Umar Khan v. Mst. Gulshan Begum, II (1991) DMC 15=1991 (II) M. P. W. N. Note No. 61. In this judgment, this Court has held that as per provision Under Section 310, Mahomedan Law no evidence is required to prove talak as the divorce by husband is complete just by utterance of words talak, talak, talak thrice and the presence of third person is not necessary. In this view of the matter, there is no option to the wife to challenge the talak, ( 6. ) CONTRARY to this judgment passed in Mohd. Umar Khans case (supra), the Madras High Court has taken the view in the case of Saleem Basha v. Mumtaj Begum (supra), that denial by husband on ground of divorce, valid divorce under Muslim Law requires that there should be an attempt between the husband and wife by two mediators, one chosen by wife from her family and the other chosen by husband from his side. In absence of evidence to show that any attempt for settlement prior to divorce was made, the divorce effected is not a valid divorce under the law. Thus, the wife cannot be denied maintenance on the ground of divorce. The aforesaid decision of Madras High Court is based on several decisions of other High Courts mentioned therein as well as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Fazlun Bi v. K. Khader Vali, AIR 1980 S. C. 1730 at page 1739, Divisional Bench Judgment of Gauhati High Court passed in case of Zeenat Fatema Rashid v. Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed, 1993 (2) Crimes 853 and in the case of Motiur Rehman v. Shabin Khatun, II (1994) DMC 57= 1994 (3) Crimes 236 at page 241. ( 7. Iqbal Ahmed, 1993 (2) Crimes 853 and in the case of Motiur Rehman v. Shabin Khatun, II (1994) DMC 57= 1994 (3) Crimes 236 at page 241. ( 7. ) THIS Court has gone through all the aforesaid decisions of different High Courts as well as the Supreme Court and is of the opinion that as per the provision of Section 2, Muslim Women Act which reads as under : 2 (a) "divorced woman" means a Muslim woman who was married according to Muslim Law and has been divorced by or has obtained divorce from her husband in accordance with Muslim Law. " That in view of the provision and aforesaid decisions, it is obligatory on the part of the husband to prove divorce in accordance with Muslim Law. ( 8. ) THIS Court has considered only Section 310 of Mahomedan Law in the case of Mohd. Umarkhan (supra), whereas in the case of Salim Basha (supra), rendered by the Madras High Court, several judgments of various High Courts have been referred to and considered which all unequivocally ruled that no divorce is duly effected if it is in violation of the injunction of the Quran. In Para 24, which is extracted, the Madras High Court held: "it follows from the above decisions that under the Quoran the marriage status is to be maintained as far as possible, and there should be conciliation before divorce, and, therefore, the Quoran discourages divorce, and it permits only after pre-divorce conference. I am also in agreement with the principles laid down in the above decisions and take the view that the divorce must be preceded among Muslims by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and wife by two mediators-one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his side. In the above view of the the matter, a Mohamedan husband cannot divorce his wife at his whim or caprice i. e. divorce must be for a reasonable cause and it must be preceded by a pre-divorce conference to arrive at a settlement. In the above view of the the matter, a Mohamedan husband cannot divorce his wife at his whim or caprice i. e. divorce must be for a reasonable cause and it must be preceded by a pre-divorce conference to arrive at a settlement. Even if there is any reasonable cause for the divorce, yet there must be evidence to show that there was an attempt for a settlement prior to the divorce and when there was no such attempt prior to divorce to arrive at a settlement by mediators, then there cannot be a valid divorce under Mohomedan Law. " ( 9. ) IN the judgment of Mohd. Umarkhan (supra) rendered by this Court, the aforesaid legal position has not been considered which is mandatory for establishing that the husband has divorced his wife in accordance with Muslim Law. In this judgment, the question of reconciliation between the spouse has not been considered. Therefore, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 10. ) NOW turning to the factual position of this case, it is crystal clear that prior to pronouncement of divorce in writing vide Ex. D/l, no reconciliation proceedings as stated hereinabove, had taken place for settlement between the parties on the presence of their two mediators, one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his side. ( 11. ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has taken this Court through the application Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the non-applicants and pointed out that in para 3, they have mentioned that after turning out from the house to her, her father and other relations tried to convince the applicant-husband to keep the non-applicants with him, but, he refused to do so. He has also taken me through the statement of P. W. 3 Mohd. Sarafarajuddin, brother of the non-applicant No. 1 who has deposed in para 1 that they called community Panchayat but the applicant and persons of his side did not turn up in the said Panchayat. Thereafter, his father went to the applicant, but the applicant demanded payment of one lac rupees first in time and only thereafter, he would talk on the issue. Thereafter, his father went to the applicant, but the applicant demanded payment of one lac rupees first in time and only thereafter, he would talk on the issue. In para 4, this witness has stated that his aunt had taken the non-applicant No. 1 to the applicant and left her there after facing great difficulty. ( 12. ) LEARNED Counsel also read out the statement of DVV-3 Ramchandra Soni who is said to be the scribe of divorce deed (talaknama) Ex. D/l. According to this witness, he had written the contents of Ex. D/l as per the instructions furnished by non-applicant No. 1 wife Nigar Sultana. This Court has gone through the statements of both the parties and the documents and is not impressed by the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the applicant on the basis of aforementioned statements of the witnesses and the contents of application Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. as well as the divorce deed Ex. D/l that one can come to the conclusion that reconciliation proceedings had taken place between the applicant and the N. A. No. 1 as mentioned in the judgment of Madras High Court Saleem Basha (supra), and the Divisional Bench of Gauhati High Court in Zeenat Fatema Rashid (supra), which are based on QURANIC LAW and in the reported sayings of prophet (Hadit ). No witness of either side or the documents are revealing this fact that prior to divorce, reconciliation proceedings had taken place between the applicant and the non-application No. 1, after deputing the persons of their own choice from both families. ( 13. ) THUS, the conclusion arrived at by the Revisional Court appears to be just, proper and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ( 14. ) AS a result of the discussion as aforesaid, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. .