JUDGMENT : Shaffique, J. Mat.Appeal No.437/11 is filed by the respondent/wife challenging judgment dated 7/4/2011 passed in OP No. 620/2008 and Mat.Appeal No.631/11 is filed by the petitioner/wife challenging judgment in OP No.100/2007. 2. OP No.100/2007 was dismissed and OP No.620/2008 was allowed by directing the respondent/wife to hand over the vacant possession of the petition-schedule property to the petitioner/husband within a period of three months from the date of judgment. It is challenging the common judgment passed in the original petitions, these appeals have been filed. 3. The short facts of the case are as under and the parties are described as shown in OP No.100/2007 unless otherwise stated:- The petitioner/wife married the respondent/husband on 10/10/1971 as per the religious custom prevailing among the Muslim community. After the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife at the petitioner's house and matrimonial home. Three children were born in the wedlock. A new residential building was constructed at Haji Motta in the year 1982 with the sale consideration of an extent of 30 cents of property belonging to the petitioner. On completion of the construction of the building, the petitioner, first respondent/husband and their children shifted to the new residence and they lived there till 2002. The first respondent retired from Military service in the year 1995. The relationship between the petitioner and first respondent was cordial till May 2004. The respondent started construction of another house at Mangattuparamba, the petition schedule item No.2 property in the year 2000. The respondent had availed a loan of Rs.1 lakh from the Bank by mortgaging the property exclusively belonging to the petitioner. The construction of the house was completed in the year 2002 and house warming ceremony was conducted on 10/1/2003. The petitioner had paid the loan amount availed by the first respondent from the Bank. During the house warming ceremony, the first respondent openly declared in the presence of the family members of the petitioner as well as the first respondent that he is going to gift item No.2 property to the petitioner and her children and he handed over the key of the house to the petitioner. Since then, the petitioner is residing in the said house. The first respondent also resided with her in the newly constructed house. Since then, the petitioner is residing in the said house. The first respondent also resided with her in the newly constructed house. The first respondent sold the house and property situated at Haji Motta to 2nd the respondent as per sale deed No.1587/2004 of SRO Kalliasseri without the consent of the petitioner and children. When petitioner enquired about the same, the first respondent became furious and he left the house. The respondent appropriated the entire sale consideration of the property. Even though the petitioner and her children persuaded the respondent to reside with them, the respondent refused to do so. It is reliably learnt that respondent contracted another marriage and he is residing at Mattannur along with his new wife. The respondent is attempting to forcibly evict her from Item No.2 property to accommodate his second wife. The allegation of the first respondent that he pronounced talaq on 11/7/2008 is incorrect. In the order passed in MC No.370/2005, there was a finding by this Court that the talaq was not in accordance with Mohammedan law and that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and since she is the wife of the first respondent, she has every right to reside in item no.2 property. The petitioner has no house of her own and if she is evicted from the house, she will be put to serious hardship. The first respondent filed OP No.113/2005 before this Court for recovery of possession of item No.2 property. Subsequently, the OP was abandoned by the petitioner without obtaining leave of the Court. The respondent is taking hasty steps to evict the petitioner from the petition schedule property. Hence, she sought for a decree restraining the respondents permanently from evicting her from item No.2 property. She also sought for a declaration that the house in item No.1 property was constructed with the funds of the petitioner and that she is entitled to get the value of the house. 4. The first respondent/husband denied all the allegations by filing counter statement. He denied the oral gift and that the house in item No.1 property was constructed with the funds of petitioner. 5. OP No.620/2008 is filed by the husband claiming exclusive right and title over the petition schedule property. According to the husband, the petition schedule property belongs to him absolutely as per partition deed No.1527/93 of SRO, Kalliasseri. He denied the oral gift and that the house in item No.1 property was constructed with the funds of petitioner. 5. OP No.620/2008 is filed by the husband claiming exclusive right and title over the petition schedule property. According to the husband, the petition schedule property belongs to him absolutely as per partition deed No.1527/93 of SRO, Kalliasseri. The respondent is the former wife of the petitioner. The petitioner, respondent and children resided in a house situated at Kalliasseri. Since their relationship worsened due to the illegal acts of the respondent, they shifted their residence to the house exclusively belonging to the respondent situated at Pappinisseri. Subsequently, he constructed a house in the petition schedule property. While the petitioner was residing in the petition schedule property, the respondent and her son tried to trespass into the petition schedule property. The respondent had instituted OP No.113/2005 against the illegal acts of the respondent and her children. On 22/2/2005, the respondent with the assistance of her son Afsal criminally trespassed into the petition schedule property after breaking open the lock of the house. The petitioner was forced to shift his residence from the petition schedule property following the threat of the respondent and her son. The petitioner had pronounced talaq and divorced the respondent on 11/7/2008. Since the respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner, she has no right over the petition schedule property or the house situated therein. The petitioner is paying the basic tax and building tax in respect of the petition schedule property and he claimed that he has exclusive right and title over the petition schedule property. 6. In the counter statement, the respondent/wife denied the allegations against her. She reiterated her contentions which she has raised in OP No.100/2007. It was also contended that the talaq pronounced by her husband was not valid. 7. First we shall consider the petitioner/wife's claim for exclusive right and title over item No.2 of petition-schedule property. The aforesaid right has been claimed based on an oral gift. According to the petitioner/wife, on 10/1/2003, the respondent/husband openly made a declaration in the presence of relatives during the house warming ceremony that he is going to gift the house to the petitioner and her children. Thereafter, he handed over the key of the house to the petitioner. The aforesaid right has been claimed based on an oral gift. According to the petitioner/wife, on 10/1/2003, the respondent/husband openly made a declaration in the presence of relatives during the house warming ceremony that he is going to gift the house to the petitioner and her children. Thereafter, he handed over the key of the house to the petitioner. But, it is relevant to note that the property is still in the name of respondent as per entry in the revenue records. AW1, the wife while being examined before court admitted that she is not paying the building tax. AW2 is the brother of the petitioner. Cross-examination indicates that neither AW1 or AW2 has no clear idea whether the gift was in favour of the petitioner or her children jointly or the petitioner alone. When an oral gift is pleaded, it has to be proved without any iota of doubt. When there is any discrepancy in the evidence with reference to oral gift, the same cannot be accepted. Family Court observed that the pleadings are inconsistent and the evidence is that of interested witnesses. No independent witness has been examined to prove the oral gift. Evidence adduced by the husband would prove that he was paying property tax and he has exclusive right and title over the petition-schedule property. Ext.B2 is the land tax receipt for the period 2007-08. Ext.B14 is the ownership certificate issued by the Kalliasseri Grama Panchayat in favour of the respondent. All these documents would prove that the contention regarding oral gift has not been substantiated. As far as item No.1 property is concerned, there is no evidence worth mentioning to prove that the building was constructed with the funds of the petitioner. The Family Court was therefore justified in rejecting the said claim. 8. With reference to the finding of the Family Court that there was a valid talaq between the parties, according to the husband, he had pronounced talaq on 25/9/2005. However in MC No.370/2005, there is a finding that the respondent had failed to prove a valid talaq. Accordingly, he again pronounced talaq after complying with the formalities on 11/7/2008 and Ext.B4 is the copy of talaqnama dated 11/7/2008. According to the husband, he had sent a letter to his wife inviting her for conciliation talks as per Ext.B5 letter dated 24/6/2008. Accordingly, he again pronounced talaq after complying with the formalities on 11/7/2008 and Ext.B4 is the copy of talaqnama dated 11/7/2008. According to the husband, he had sent a letter to his wife inviting her for conciliation talks as per Ext.B5 letter dated 24/6/2008. She did not attend the conciliation and accordingly, he had pronounced talaq thrice. Triple talaq is found to be illegal by the Apex Court in a Constitution Bench judgment in Shayara Bano v. Union of India [ (2017) 9 SCC 1 ]. Apex Court held that practice of Triple Talaq is not protected by Art.25 of the Constitution of India and it is not an essential religious practice. It is also held that Triple Talaq is against the basic tenets of Quran and violates the Shariat. In the light of the aforesaid finding, the Triple Talaq pronounced by the respondent/husband is not valid in accordance with law. To that extent, the judgment requires to be set aside. 9. Though we have declared that the husband is the owner of the petition-schedule property, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the right of the wife to exercise the right of residence which may have to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the result:- (i) Mat.Appeal No.437/11 is dismissed. However, the decree passed by the Family Court shall be subject to the right of the respondent/wife to exercise right of residence as contemplated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. (ii) Mat. Appeal No 631/11 is partly allowed. The finding of the Family Court that there is a valid talaq between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, is hereby set aside.