JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sk. Muktar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. AR Bhuiya, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of Ahsan Talak-1 dated 27.05.2009 and Ahsan Talak-2 dated 28.06.2009 as well as order dated 29.06.2009, passed by the respondent No. 3, Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar, Kalgachia, Barpeta rejecting the objection lodged by the petitioner against issuance of Ahsan Talak-1. 3. Petitioner is a practicing Advocate of the High Court. She had married respondent No. 4 on 05.12.1999 as per Islamic Shariat at Guwahati. The maharana amount for the marriage was fixed at Rs. 55,555.00. It is stated that at the time of marriage, respondent No. 4 was a journalist. Soon afterwards, respondent No. 4 joined politics and became a member of the Congress (I) political party. 4. Since marriage till 2004, petitioner and respondent No. 4 were staying together in a rented accommodation. It is alleged that over a period of time, respondent No. 4 developed extra marital affairs which caused rift between petitioner and respondent No. 4. In 2006, respondent No. 4 became Member of Assam Legislative Assembly (MLA) from No. 44 Jania Constituency where after both petitioner and respondent No. 4 shifted to MLA Hostel Complex, Dispur at Guwahati. According to the petitioner, after his marriage, respondent No. 4 was a changed personality and behaved in an undignified manner with the petitioner. He openly declared his extra marital affair with another woman. Despite objection by the petitioner, there was no change in the behavior and attitude of respondent No. 4; rather, he started mentally torturing the petitioner by threatening her with talak. Finally, he declared that he would go for a second marriage with the other woman. 5. Unable to bear such mental torture and humiliation, petitioner left her matrimonial home on 01.02.2009 and started living with her parents. 6. Petitioner received Ahsan Talak-1 dated 27.05.2009 from the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar, Kalgachia, Barpeta. It was stated therein that petitioner did not listen to her husband-respondent No. 4 and did not obey Islamic Shariat which resulted in dispute between the two rendering conjugal life difficult. 6. Petitioner received Ahsan Talak-1 dated 27.05.2009 from the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar, Kalgachia, Barpeta. It was stated therein that petitioner did not listen to her husband-respondent No. 4 and did not obey Islamic Shariat which resulted in dispute between the two rendering conjugal life difficult. Since there was no other alternative, respondent No. 4 gave Ahsan ek Talak i.e., Ahsan Talak-1. 7. On receipt of Ahsan Talak-1, petitioner submitted objection before respondent No. 3 on 12.06.2009. It was contended that the marriage had taken place at Guwahati where after the two parties were residing alone at Guwahati. Therefore, respondent No. 3 at Barpeta did not have jurisdiction to issue Ahsan Talak-1; which in any case was contrary to and in conflict with the principles of Mahomedan Law. The grounds given by respondent No. 4 to justify Ahsan Talak-1 were baseless and without any substance. Respondent No. 4 did not make any such allegation either before the petitioner or before her guardian. 8. Petitioner also filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta-cum-Registrar, Barpeta on 12.06.2009 under Section 20 of the Assam Moslem Marriages and Divorces Registration Act, 1935. 9. In the meanwhile, Ahsan Talak-2 dated 28.06.2009 was served upon the petitioner. Here also the same allegations were reiterated. 10. Respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner vide letter dated 29.06.2009 that her objection to Ahsan Talak-1 was without any substance. Question of jurisdictional error in so far application of Mahomedan Law is concerned does not arise. Objection that Ahsan Talak-1 was contrary to and in direct conflict with provisions of Mahomedan Law was found to be very vague. It was pointed out that petitioner had no right to object to Ahsan Talak-1 given by her husband and her objection would not impact the legality of it in any manner. It was mentioned that only option available with the petitioner was to opt for mutual settlement, if that was possible. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief’s as indicated above. 12. This Court by order dated 23.11.2010 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that status quo amongst the parties should be maintained. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted for hearing. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief’s as indicated above. 12. This Court by order dated 23.11.2010 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that status quo amongst the parties should be maintained. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted for hearing. Respondent No. 2 i.e. Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta in his affidavit has stated that on the appeal filed by petitioner on 12.06.2009, report was called for from the concerned Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar, Kalgachia. On receipt of his report dated 01.10.2010, the matter was examined and opinion of learned Government Pleader, Barpeta was obtained. Thereafter, petitioner was informed that the action of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar was correct. 13. Petitioner has filed reply-affidavit contending that the decision taken on her appeal was never communicated to her. It is also contended that the manner in which her appeal was disposed of by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, there was no decision at all. Appellate authority had called for a report from the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar and after receipt of the report, he simply endorsed the same and disposed of the appeal. 14. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made detailed submissions on the principles and different modes of talak, including Ahsan Talak. He has also referred to a number of decisions of this Court as well as of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court to contend that efforts at conciliation and settlement of dispute must be made before annulment of marriage by taking recourse to talak. No such efforts at conciliation and settlement were made before issuance of Ahsan Talak-1 and Ahsan Talak-2 rendering the same a nullity in the eye of law. He further submits that appeal of the petitioner was not disposed of by the appellate authority in accordance with law. Appellate authority had merely endorsed what respondent No. 3 stated. 15. Learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. Bhuiya representing respondent No. 4 on the other hand support the view taken by the Registrar. Though respondent No. 4 has not filed affidavit, learned counsel representing him made oral submissions at the time of hearing. Appellate authority had merely endorsed what respondent No. 3 stated. 15. Learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. Bhuiya representing respondent No. 4 on the other hand support the view taken by the Registrar. Though respondent No. 4 has not filed affidavit, learned counsel representing him made oral submissions at the time of hearing. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 additionally submitted that the present proceeding is only an academic exercise inasmuch as the same would have no bearing on the marital status or personal life of respondent No. 4. 16. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 17. Principles of Mahomedan Law by Mulla is considered to be an authority on Islamic Law in India. Chapter-XVI deals with divorce. Part-A thereof is divorce by husband. Amongst the different forms of divorce is divorce by talak by the husband which may be orally or in writing. Section 311 mentions different modes of talak, such as, talak ahsan, talak hasan and talak-ul-bidaat or talak-i-badai. 18. Talak ahsan consists of a single pronouncement of divorce made a tuhr i.e., period between menstruations followed by abstinence from sexual intercourse for the period of iddat. 19. Therefore, what is seen from the above is that when it is a case of talak ahsan, there is single pronouncement of divorce made during particular period of tuhr. 20. On the other hand, in case of talak hasan, three pronouncements are required to be made during successive periods of tuhrs, with the further condition that there should be no intercourse during any of the three tuhrs. 21. If indeed respondent No. 4 had granted talak ahsan to the petitioner, the second talak ahsan was really not necessary; rather unwarranted. If the second talak ahsan is taken into consideration then it would be a case of talak hasan but that process has not yet been completed because only two written talaks had been given where after status quo order of the Court had come into play. 22. Proceeding to Section 312, sub-section (1) thereof says that a talak in the ahsan mode becomes irrevocable and complete on the expiration of the period of iddat. As per sub-section (2), a talak in the hasan mode would become irrevocable and complete on the third pronouncement, irrespective of the iddat period. 22. Proceeding to Section 312, sub-section (1) thereof says that a talak in the ahsan mode becomes irrevocable and complete on the expiration of the period of iddat. As per sub-section (2), a talak in the hasan mode would become irrevocable and complete on the third pronouncement, irrespective of the iddat period. Thus if it is a case of talak in the hasan mode, as the process is not complete, talak has not become irrevocable but if it is in the ahsan mode, it became irrevocable and complete on the expiry of the period of iddat. 23. This is more relating to the procedural aspect of the talak; be it talak ahsan or talak hasan. But there is more to the substance. No doubt marriage under Islamic law is a civil contract binding the two parties. But even such a civil contract in the form of marriage can only be dissolved or nullified by conforming to and completing the procedural formalities. 24. This question came up before a Single Bench of this Court in Jiauddin Ahmed Vs. Mrs. Anwara Begum, reported in 1981 (1) GLR 358. Justice Baharul Islam, as he then was, in this elaborate judgment had explained the concept of marriage and divorce, particularly, divorce under Islamic law. Question which was considered in that judgment was whether the talak of the wife by the petitioner was valid under the Muslim Law. Talak is an Arabic ward meaning divorce. It literally means freeing or undoing of a knot. Talak means divorce of a woman by her husband and not vice versa. Though marriage under the Muslim Law is only a civil contract, yet the rights and responsibilities consequent upon it are of much significance so much so that a high degree of sanctity is attached to it. Notwithstanding the same, Islam recognizes the necessity of dissolution of marriage in exceptional circumstances. Both the Quran and the Hadis clearly provides that though divorce is permitted, yet right to divorce can be exercised only under exceptional circumstances. It was pointed out that much misconception has developed over the concept of talak in Islamic jurisprudence mainly because of several decisions rendered by British Judges; as per which, any Mahomedan may divorce his wife at his mere whim and caprice. No occasion or cause is required for divorce, mere whim is sufficient: it is good in law though bad in theology. No occasion or cause is required for divorce, mere whim is sufficient: it is good in law though bad in theology. Disagreeing with such views and referring to the Quranic principles and commentaries, Justice Islam held that the correct law of talak is that talak must be for a reasonable cause and must be preceded by attempts at reconciliation between husband and wife by two arbiters; one from the wife's family and the others from the husband's family. If attempt at reconciliation fails, talak may be effected. It was clarified that mere registration of divorce even if proved will not render valid a divorce which is otherwise invalid under Muslim Law. 25. This Single Bench decision in Jiauddin Ahmed (supra), was affirmed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Musst. Rukia Khatun Vs. Abdul Khalique Laskar, reported in 1981 (1) GLR 375. It was reiterated that the correct law of talak is that firstly talak must be for a reasonable cause and secondly, it must be preceded by an attempt at reconciliation between husband and wife by two arbiters; one chosen by the wife from amongst her family and the other by the husband from amongst his family. If their attempts fail, talak may be effected. 26. Bombay High Court in Dagdu Vs. Rahimbi Dagdu Pathan, Ashabi, 2002 (3) MhLJ 602 referred to the above two decisions of the Gauhati High Court with approval and held that it shall be the duty of the arbiters to bring about a settlement between the parties but if discord and dispute still persists despite such attempts there would be no alternative but to separate, it is at that stage that the husband has the right to give talak to his wife. The stage of conciliation with the intervention of the arbiters is a condition precedent for effecting talak, either in ahsan form or in hasan form. The husband cannot repudiate the marriage at his sweet will. The dispute must be first referred to the two arbiters and their decision is binding. Attempt at reconciliation by the two relations is an essential condition precedent to talak. 27. In Shamim Ara Vs. State of UP, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 518 , Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in Jiauddin Ahmed (supra). The dispute must be first referred to the two arbiters and their decision is binding. Attempt at reconciliation by the two relations is an essential condition precedent to talak. 27. In Shamim Ara Vs. State of UP, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 518 , Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court in Jiauddin Ahmed (supra). Even in the recent decision of the Supreme Court concerning talak-ul-bidaat or talak-i-badai i.e., triple talak in Shayara Bono Vs. Union of India, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 1 , Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has referred to the aforesaid decisions of the Gauhati High Court. While declaring triple talak to be unconstitutional, Supreme Court noted that this form of talak rules out any attempt at reconciliation between husband and wife. The correct law of talak is that talak must be for a reasonable cause and must be preceded by attempts at reconciliation between husband and wife by two arbiters - one from the wife's family and the other from the husband's family. Only if their attempts fail, talak may be effected. Since triple talak is instant and irrevocable, no attempt at reconciliation between husband and wife can ever take place. 28. Having briefly noticed the legal position concerning talak ahsan or talak hasan, notwithstanding the procedural aspect, the core of the issue is that talak must be for a reasonable cause. Talak cannot be thrust upon the wife by the husband on his mere whims and fancies. That a part, attempts at reconciliation between husband and wife by two arbiters, one nominated by the wife from her family and the other nominated by the husband from his family is a condition precedent for a valid talak; only if reconciliation fails talak can be effected. 29. On going through the impugned Ahsan Talak-1 and Ahsan Talak-2, Court is of the view that the reasons given therein are not at all reasonable to warrant dissolution of marriage by a talak. Ahsan Talak -1 and Ahsan Talak-2 were not preceded by any attempt at reconciliation between the parties by appointment of two arbiters as above. 30. That being the position, Court has no hesitation to hold that talak ahsan-1 as well as talak ahsan-2 would be legally untenable and would have no legal consequence. 31. Ahsan Talak -1 and Ahsan Talak-2 were not preceded by any attempt at reconciliation between the parties by appointment of two arbiters as above. 30. That being the position, Court has no hesitation to hold that talak ahsan-1 as well as talak ahsan-2 would be legally untenable and would have no legal consequence. 31. In so far disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner is concerned, the appellate authority had not applied his mind to the basic legal issues. He had sought for a report from the authority who had given the two talaks. After recording that he was satisfied. with the report, the appeal was dismissed. The law relating to exercise of appellate power by the appellate authority is well settled and it is not necessary to burden this judgment with the series of judgments on this point. Appellate order must be supported by reasons and must be a speaking order. In the absence of reasons, it would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice and would not be tenable in law. 32. Consequently, Ahsan Talak-1 dated 27.05.2009 and Ahsan Talak-2 dated 28.06.2009 are set aside and quashed. 33. Writ petition is accordingly allowed but without any order as to costs.