JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This Revision Application has been filed by the husband under Section 19(4) of the Family Court's Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 08.03.2004 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur in Criminal Misc Case No. 9 of 2003. By the said order the learned Trial Judge has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) per month to the wife of the present petitioner. 2. I have heard Shri Ng. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None represented the wife/respondent. Hence, Shri L. Sharat Sharma was appointed as Amicus Curiae. 3. An application for maintenance was filed by Ms. Thambalsana Bibi in the year 2000 stating that she was a widow and about eight years ago she was married by Md. Nurali. According to the respondent, after maintaining marital relation she was neglected by her husband. Hence, the respondent prayed for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month, but she was awarded only a sum of Rs. 500/- per month. 4. The maintenance case was contested by the husband by filing his written statement primarily on the ground that he had divorced his wife. It was pleaded by the husband that he had divorced his wife by executing a talaknama on 04.10.2002 and as such, his wife was not entitled to any maintenance allowance. It was also pleaded by the husband that neither had he inflicted any cruelty upon his wife nor she was neglected in maintaining her during the marital life. At the same time it was also contended by the husband that his wife is working as an Anganwadi Worker getting monthly wages of 1200/- per month and as such, she did not deserve any maintenance allowance from the present petitioner. 5. Both the parties adduced three witnesses each to corroborate their pleadings. After hearing both the parties the learned Trial Judge disbelieved the story of divorce and has awarded the maintenance allowance. 6. Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on three grounds. His first contention is that the Talaknama was executed in presence of witnesses and despite corroborative evidence the same has not been accepted by the Court below, which amounts to illegality. 6. Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on three grounds. His first contention is that the Talaknama was executed in presence of witnesses and despite corroborative evidence the same has not been accepted by the Court below, which amounts to illegality. The second submission is that the learned Judge ought to have held that the divorce was at least effected from the date of filing of the written statement and thereafter the wife should have been asked to file appropriate application for maintenance under the Provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Apart from this legal submission, the learned Counsel also submitted that even otherwise, the wife was not entitled to any maintenance allowance since she was suitably employed and having sufficient earning. 7. Per contra, Shri L. Sharat Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that even a divorcee is entitled to maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. To buttress his submission, the learned Counsel cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of Rohtash Singh v. Smt Ramendri and Ors. 2000 CriLJ 1498. The ratio of this authority is not applicable in the present case as it relates to Hindu widows, whereas I am dealing with a case of Muslim woman. The learned Counsel also submitted that even a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to get maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and in support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Shaikh Babbu v. Sayeda Masarat Begum and Anr. 8. There is no dispute regarding marriage of both the parties. The only question revolves around the question as to whether the respondent was at all divorced on 04.10.2002 either by way of pronouncement of oral talak or by way of executing a written talaknama. The learned Trial Judge has held that the opposite party/husband has failed to prove that there was divorce by agreement between him and his wife. This finding has been given on the basis of series of discrepancies in the oral testimony of DWs. 9. It is the story of the husband that on 04.10.2002 he was suddenly called by his wife to the house of her son-in-law and wanted divorce. Accordingly, a written Talaknama was executed in presence of two witnesses. This finding has been given on the basis of series of discrepancies in the oral testimony of DWs. 9. It is the story of the husband that on 04.10.2002 he was suddenly called by his wife to the house of her son-in-law and wanted divorce. Accordingly, a written Talaknama was executed in presence of two witnesses. However, while giving oral evidence the husband, examining himself as DW-1 has deposed that he had pronounced oral talak twice and thereafter executed a talaknama in presence of witnesses. The said talaknama has been marked as D/1. However DWs 2 and 3 are totally silent about the pronouncement of oral talak twice in the same proceeding. At the same time according to DWs 2 and 3 two copies of talaknama were prepared whereas the husband himself has not stated so. In this way, the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that DWs 2 and 3 are not reliable witnesses. 10. The above apart, I find that both the DW Nos. 2 and 3 are the persons from the village of the husband. Both these witnesses have deposed that they were summoned to the house of one Isla Uddin, son-in-law of the wife, and on their arrival the talak proceeding was completed. I have already stated earlier that these witnesses are conspicuously silent about the oral talak in their depositions. It is not understood as to why no witness from the neighbourhood of the wife or for that matter any neighbour of the said Islauddin was invited to witness the talak proceeding. Hence, the learned Trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the defense story and his witnesses DWs 2 and 3 on this point. On the other hand PW-2 is a renowned person of the locality. She is a Gram Panchayat Member. This witness has categorically deposed that the parties have not yet divorced each other. 11. It has also not been clarified as to why both the oral and writing method was adopted for the purpose of divorce. Under Mohammedan Law a wife can be divorced by pronouncing talak three times. In the present case the husband has deposed that he had pronounced two talaks. It is not understood as to what had prevented the husband from pronouncing three talaks. Even thereafter a written agreement could have been executed for the purpose of mutual responsibility and liabilities. Under Mohammedan Law a wife can be divorced by pronouncing talak three times. In the present case the husband has deposed that he had pronounced two talaks. It is not understood as to what had prevented the husband from pronouncing three talaks. Even thereafter a written agreement could have been executed for the purpose of mutual responsibility and liabilities. In my opinion either the husband should have taken recourse to oral talak or he could have adopted the procedure of written talak in the presence of witnesses. There was no necessity to take recourse to both the procedure and this fact also gives reason to disbelieve the story of divorce. 12. Now coming to the question whether the statement of divorce made in the written statement would suffice to accept the divorce. The Bombay High Court in the case of Chandbi v. Bandesha AIR 1961 Bom 121 has held that at least divorce of a Muslim couple has to be accepted from the date of filing of written statement, incorporating the fact of divorce. Identical view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. Fareedunnisa Begum and Anr. AIR 1970 AP 298 . With due respect I hold that the law laid down in the above two authorities are not good law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. and Anr. [2002] SUPP 3 SCR 19. In this case also the husband had taken a plea that he had divorced his wife long ago and simultaneous plea was taken that at least talak should be accepted from the date of written statement. However, the Apex Court repelled the said contention holding that mere taking a plea in the written statement about divorce would not be sufficient to prove the fact of talak. The relevant observation of the Apex Court can be fruitfully extracted below: 16. We are also of the opinion that the talaq to be effective has to be pronounced. The term "pronounce" means to proclaim, to utter formally, to utter rhetorically, to declare, to utter, to articulate (see Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition, p. 1030). There is no proof of talaq having taken place on 11.07.1987. We are also of the opinion that the talaq to be effective has to be pronounced. The term "pronounce" means to proclaim, to utter formally, to utter rhetorically, to declare, to utter, to articulate (see Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition, p. 1030). There is no proof of talaq having taken place on 11.07.1987. What the High Court has upheld as talaq is the plea taken in the written statement and its communication to the wife by delivering a copy of the written statement on 05.12.1990. We are very clear in our mind that a mere plea taken in the written statement of a divorce having been pronounced sometime in the past cannot by itself be treated as effectuating talaq on the date of delivery of the copy of the written statement to the wife. Respondent 2 ought to have adduced evidence and proved the pronouncement of talaq on 11.07.1987 and if he failed in proving the plea raised in the written statement, the plea ought to have been treated as failed. 13. While laying down the said law regarding method of proof of divorce either oral or written, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved with appreciation the judgment of the Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begum (1981) 1 GLR 358 and Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Khalique Lasker (1981) 1 GLR 375. In the case before me I hold that the story of written talak is highly clouded and the same has not been proved through cogent evidence. Since the husband failed to prove the fact of divorce there is no scope for him to deliberate on the issue whether the Maintenance Application should be relegated to other forum to decide the same under the 1986 Act. 14. Coming to the quantum of maintenance allowance, the husband has admitted that he is a teacher of Government LP School and drawing nearly Rs. 7000/-, Shri Ng. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of this amount he has to look after his wife and four adult children and as such the amount of maintenance allowance/granted by the Trial Court is on the higher side. Besides this, it was also submitted that the wife is working as an Anganwadi Worker and drawing monthly wage of Rs. 1000/-. Besides this, it was also submitted that the wife is working as an Anganwadi Worker and drawing monthly wage of Rs. 1000/-. It is needless to say that once the relationship of the parties as husband and wife is proved it is the duty of the husband to maintain -his legally wedded wife with dignity. 15. According to the learned Trial Judge, the wife is getting a paltry amount less than Rs. 500/- p.m. and that too is not regular. Hence, I am of the view that awarding maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- p.m. is not on the higher side and the same is hereby maintained. 16. In the result, I hold that the Revision Application is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Shri L. Sharat Sharma, learned Amicus shall be entitled to Rs. 2000/- as his fee. Application dismissed.