ORDER : The accused in C.C.No.976/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, seeks quashment of the said case in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondents herein are wife of the petitioner and State of Kerala, respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor was also heard. 3. In the instant case, Crime No.390/2022 was registered by the Kannur City Police on 6.8.2022, as per Annexure A1 FIR on the allegation that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (for short, ‘the Act, 2019’ hereinafter). Thereafter, investigation completed and final report filed as Annexure A2 alleging commission of the above offence by the petitioner, who is arrayed as the sole accused therein. 4. The trial court took cognizance of the matter and the same has been pending as C.C.No.976/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, now. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner zealously argued that as per Annexure A5, the first talaq was effected on 2.6.2022, and what was intended is talaq-e-sunnat and not talaq-e-biddat. According to the learned counsel, the last paragraph of Annexure-A5 would show that talaq would take effect after 90 days if the same would not be revoked by the husband within 90 days. It is also pointed out that though the second talaq (Annexure A6) also was pronounced on 12.6.2022, therein also same clause was incorporated. It is pointed out further that, as on 22.6.2022, the petitioner pronounced third talaq (Annexure A7), therein also power to revoke talaq was retained within 90 days. Therefore, if at all the talaq-e-sunnat attempted by the petitioner is found to be not legal for other reasons, that does not tantamount talaq-e-biddat of irrevocable nature, which is prohibited under Section 3 of the Act, 2019. Therefore, the petitioner did not commit any offence and his plea to quash the proceedings is liable to be allowed. The learned counsel placed decision of this Court in Sajid Muhammedkutty v. State of Kearla and Anr. Therefore, the petitioner did not commit any offence and his plea to quash the proceedings is liable to be allowed. The learned counsel placed decision of this Court in Sajid Muhammedkutty v. State of Kearla and Anr. reported in [(2024 0 Supreme (Ker) 691) : (2024 KER 56255) : (2024 0 KLT (Online) 2346) : (2024 Supreme (Online) (KER) 15366], wherein this Court addressed talaq effected by the accused therein on three occasions, viz., 23.12.2021, 13.07.2022 and 16.10.2022. In the said decision, in paragraph Nos.5 to 11, this Court discussed the issue and finally, held in paragraph No.14 and the same read as under: “5. While resisting the said contention, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that in the instant case though talaq was pronounced on 3 separate occasions, the same would fall within the purview of instantaneous talaq prohibited under the Act, 2019, as the pre-conditions to satisfy talaq-e-sunnat, were not fulfilled. In support of this contention, he has placed decisions of this Court reported in [ 2010 (2) KHC 63 : 2010 (2) KLT 71 : ILR 2010 (2) Ker. 140], Kunhimohammed v. Ayishakutty, [ 2021 (5) KHC 582 : 2021 KHC OnLine 629 : 2021 (5) KLT 564 : ILR 2021 (4) Ker. 561 : 2021 KER 36499], Sajani A. v. Dr.B.Kalam Pasha and Anr. It is zealously argued by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that here the prosecution allegation is that the accused herein pronounced instantaneous and irrevocable talaq and thereby liable for the penal consequences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2019 and the said allegation is specifically made out. 6. As per Section 3 of the Act, 2019, any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. Section 4 provides that any Muslim husband, who pronounces talaq referred to in Section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine for pronouncement of talaq stated under Section 3 of the Act, 2019. Section 2(c) of the Act, 2019 defines talaq mentioned in Sections 3 and 4. Section 2(c) of the Act, 2019 defines talaq mentioned in Sections 3 and 4. As per Section 2(c), `talaq’ means, talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband. Thus it is emphatically clear that in order to attract punishment provided under Section 4 and to treat pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife as talaq-e-biddat or any other form of talaq, as per Section 2(c), it must be instantaneous and irrevocable. 7. Paragraph 311 of the Principles of Mahomedan Law deals with different modes of talaq, the same are as under: “311. Different modes of talaq:-- A talaq may be effected in any of the following ways:-- (1) Talaq ahsan:- This consists of a single pronouncement of divorce made during a tuhr (period between menstruations) followed by abstinence from sexual intercourse for the period of iddat (para.257). When the marriage has not been consummated, a talaq in the ahsan form may be pronounced even if the wife is in her menstruation. Where the wife has passed the age of periods of menstruation the requirement of a declaration during a tuhr is inapplicable; furthermore, this requirement only applies to a oral divorce and not a divorce in writing (w). (2) Talaq hasan:- This consists of three pronouncements made during successive tuhrs, no intercourse taking place during any of the three tuhrs. The first pronouncement should be made during a tuhr, the second during the next tuhr, and the third during the succeeding tuhr. (3) Talaq-ul-biddat or talaq-i-badai:- This consists of – (i) three pronouncements made during a single tuhr either in one sentence, e.g, “I divorce thee thrice, -- or in separate sentences e.g., “I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee” (x) or (ii) a single pronouncement made during a tuhr clearly indicating an intention irrevocably to dissolve the marriage (y), e.g., “I divorce thee irrevocably.” 8. So, talaq is generally classified into 2, viz., `talaq-e-biddat’ or instantaneous pronouncement of divorce in the form of triple talaq. `Talaq-e-sunnat’ is in two forms, viz.,`talaq hasan’ and `talaq ahsan’. Talaq ahsan consists of a single pronouncement of divorce made during a tuhr (period between menstruations) followed by abstinence from sexual intercourse for the period of iddat (para.257). So, talaq is generally classified into 2, viz., `talaq-e-biddat’ or instantaneous pronouncement of divorce in the form of triple talaq. `Talaq-e-sunnat’ is in two forms, viz.,`talaq hasan’ and `talaq ahsan’. Talaq ahsan consists of a single pronouncement of divorce made during a tuhr (period between menstruations) followed by abstinence from sexual intercourse for the period of iddat (para.257). Talaq hasan consists of three pronouncements made during successive tuhrs, no intercourse taking place during any of the three tuhrs. 9. In Sajani A.‘s case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after referring a 5 Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in [2017 KHC 6574], Shayara Bano v. Union of India, considered the different forms of talaq and in paragraph 8 it has been stated as under: “8. In our view, the feature of instant irrevocability takes in two independent features instantaneousness and irrevocability - both of which contribute to making the practice legally odious. The Supreme Court in Shamim Ara v. State of UP (2002 KHC 829 : (2002) 7 SCC 518 : 2002 (3) KLT 537 : (2002) SCC (Cri) 1814 : AIR 2002 SC 3551 : 2002 CriLJ 4726), while endorsing the views taken in two decisions of the Gauhati High Court, spelt out the requirements of a valid talaq as (i) that the talaq must be for a reasonable cause; and (ii) that it must be preceded by attempts at reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters - one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his family. If their attempts fail, talaq can be effected. A division bench of this Court in Kunhimohammed v. Ayishakutty ( 2010 (2) KHC 63 : 2010 (2) KLT 71 : ILR 2010 (2) Ker. 140), went further to clarify that if an attempt for reconciliation by two arbiters has taken place, and they have not succeeded in bringing about a reconciliation, it can be held that there is a reasonable cause for pronouncement of talaq, and the specific reason for divorce need not be established before the Court and further, the specific reason will not be justiciable also. The Court reasoned that Muslim law - either through Quaranic injunctions or through the Sunnahs or Ahadis - did not enumerate causes for divorce that are reasonable or causes that are unreasonable. The Court reasoned that Muslim law - either through Quaranic injunctions or through the Sunnahs or Ahadis - did not enumerate causes for divorce that are reasonable or causes that are unreasonable. It was found that Islamic Law did not obligate a man to give reasons for the divorce or satisfy anyone else of such reasons. As regards the non - justiciability of the reasons, it was observed that if Courts were to look into the reasonableness of the cause for divorce, there would be as many interpretations about the reasonableness of the cause for divorce as there are judges, making the law of divorce in Muslim law uncertain, vague and confusing. Thus, the test for ruling out the vice of instantaneousness is to see whether there were genuine attempts at reconciliation between the husband and the wife, by two arbiters - one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his family. If such reconciliation attempts have in fact taken place, then, notwithstanding that such attempts proved futile, the pronouncement of talaq must be seen as valid and for a reasonable cause. That, however, is just one aspect of the matter.” 10. In Kunhimohammed‘s case (supra), another Division Bench of this Court, held that before termination of Muslim marriage by unilateral pronouncement of talaq, the husband must attempt for reconciliation by two arbiters in accordance with Ayat 35 Sura IV. Attempt for reconciliation is vital. Court further held that a divorced Muslim wife’s right to claim maintenance under S.125 CrPC doesn’t stand extinguished by the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. 11. Going by the definition of `talaq’ as meant under Section 2(c) of the Act, 2019, it is discernible that the talaq-e-biddat, ie. instantaneous and irrevocable talaq, is prohibited under Section 3 of the Act, 2019 and made punishable under Section 4 of the Act, 2019. But Mahomedan Law and its illustration herein would recognize the other form by name talaq-ul-sunnat. There are two types of Talaq-ul-sunnat, namely, (1) ahsan, that is, most proper, and (2) hasan, that is, proper. In the case of talaq ahsan and talaq hasan, the husband has an opportunity of reconsidering his decision and the talaq in both these cases does not become absolute until a certain period has elapsed (para.312) and the husband has the option to revoke it before then. In the case of talaq ahsan and talaq hasan, the husband has an opportunity of reconsidering his decision and the talaq in both these cases does not become absolute until a certain period has elapsed (para.312) and the husband has the option to revoke it before then. But the talaq-ul-biddat becomes irrevocable immediately if it is pronounced (para.312). The essential feature of a talaq-ul-biddat is its irrevocability. One of tests of irrevocability is the repetition three times of the formula of divorce within one tuhr. But the triple repetition is not a necessary condition of talaq-ul-biddat, and the intention to render a talaq-irrevocable may be expressed even by a single declaration. Thus if a man says: “I have divorced you by a talaq-ul-bain (irrevocable divorce)”, the talaq is talaq-ul—biddat or talaq-i-badai and it will take effect immediately it is pronounced, though it may be pronounced but once. Here the use of the expression “bain” (irrevocable) manifests of itself the intention to effect an irrevocable divorce. 12. xxxxx 13. xxxxx 14. Hence the question is; whether there is instantaneous and irrevocable talaq in the present case? As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, pronouncement of talaq-e-biddat is instantaneous and irrevocable and would definitely attract criminal culpability meted out in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2019. But when the very intention was to pronounce talaq-e-sunnat, if the talaq-e-sunnat pronounced is found to be illegal for want of compliance of the pre-requisites, then the said talaq would not become talaq-e-biddat. To put it otherwise, pronouncement of talaq-e-biddat, (instantaneous and irrevocable talaq) is prohibited and punishable. But when pronouncement of talaq-e-sunnat is effected, no offence under Section 3 r/w 4 of the Act, 2019 would attract. Similarly when pronouncement of talaq-e-sunnat is attempted, but not legally completed for want of compliance of pre-requisites, the same would not tantamount to talaq-e-biddat to attract Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2019. That is to say, in such an instance, no talaq or divorce takes place and the marital relation will continue. This discussion leads to the conclusion that the intention of the petitioner herein was not to pronounce instantaneous and irrevocable talaq, i.e talaq-ul-biddat, which would attract penal consequences under Section 4 of the Act, 2019 and the intention was to pronounce talaq-e-sunnat. This discussion leads to the conclusion that the intention of the petitioner herein was not to pronounce instantaneous and irrevocable talaq, i.e talaq-ul-biddat, which would attract penal consequences under Section 4 of the Act, 2019 and the intention was to pronounce talaq-e-sunnat. In view of the matter, it is held that the talaq pronounced by the accused in the present case is not talaq-e-biddat, ie. instantaneous and irrevocable to rope in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2019. In the above circumstances, the matter requires quashment.” 6. Zealously opposing the prayer for quashment, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant that, as per Section 3 of the Act, 2019, any pronouncement of talaq as defined in Section 2(c), by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. Section 2(c) further defines talaq as talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband. Interpreting these provisions, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant that since Section 2(c) states talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband, even if talaq is not pronounced three times at one stretch and was pronounced on different dates, if pronouncement of second talaq after the first talaq is before completion of one ‘tuhr’ period, the same is to be held as talaq-e-biddat in another form having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce. According to the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, when there is attempt to pronounce talaq which would not qualify talaq-e-sunnat, the same is nothing but talaq-e-biddat. Therefore, instead of pronouncing talaq three times at one stretch with irrevocability (talaq-e-biddat), the attempt to make it as a talaq pronounced on three different dates separately, without following the procedure to complete talaq-e-sunnat, the same would be held as talaq-e-biddat for the purpose of Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the Act, 2019 and in such cases, the penal consequences would not be absolved. 7. 7. Having addressed the rival contentions in this matter, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, talaq was pronounced by the petitioner on 2.6.2022, 12.6.2022 and 22.6.2022, as per Annexures A5 to A7. Thus, it become visible that even though the first talaq was pronounced on 2.6.2022, it was specifically recited therein that if the pronouncement of talaq would not be revoked by the petitioner/husband within 90 days, talaq would come into effect on expiry of 90 days. Following the first talaq, the second talaq was pronounced after 10 days, i.e., on 12.6.2022, even before completing one ‘tuhr’ period. Similarly, again after 10 days, i.e., on 22.6.2022, the third talaq also was pronounced. It is true that in all these talaq namas, there are recitals that if the talaq would not be revoked within 90 days by the husband, the same would come into effect. This is the trump card on which the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Annexures A5, A6 and A7, petitioner pronounced talaq-e-sunnat and not talaq-e-biddat. 8. As already extracted in Sajid Muhammedkutty’s case (supra), in paragraph No.7, this Court held that different modes of talaq, namely, talaq-e-biddat, talaq-e-hasan and talaq-e-ahsan would take place as held in paragraph No.311 of the principles of Mohammedan Law. Therefore, in order to complete talaq-e-sunnat, the conditions for the same shall be complied and in cases where the conditions are not fulfilled, it could not be held that there is a valid pronouncement of talaq within the sphere of talaq-e-sunnat. Here, the crucial questions arise are 1) Whether pronouncement of talaq though on different dates without completing the ‘tuhr’ period as stated in paragraph No.311 of the Mohammedan Law would make the same as instantaneous and irrevocable (talaq-e-biddat)? and 2) Is the talaq pronounced by the petitioner as per Annexures A5 to A7 is valid and thereby talaq-e-sunnat completed and the marriage is divorced? 9. In paragraph No.11 of Sajid Muhammedkutty’s case (supra), this Court held the legal position, as extracted above. So, the cardinal difference in between talaq-e-biddat and talaq-e-sunnat is based on an instantaneity and irrevocability. Here, the petitioner pronounced talaq as per Annexures A5 to A7 reserving right to get the same revoked. Therefore, pronouncement of talaq by the petitioner is revocable and not irrevocable. So, the cardinal difference in between talaq-e-biddat and talaq-e-sunnat is based on an instantaneity and irrevocability. Here, the petitioner pronounced talaq as per Annexures A5 to A7 reserving right to get the same revoked. Therefore, pronouncement of talaq by the petitioner is revocable and not irrevocable. As such, the attempt made by the petitioner is to go for talaq-e-hasan and talaq-e-ahsan without complying the formalities. No doubt, then, the attempt to make talaq-e-sunnat would become invalid, but the same in no way make the same as talaq-e-biddat or any other mode of talaq within the meaning of talaq-e-biddat. 10. In this case, the petitioner herein pronounced talaq initially on 2.6.2022 and for the second time on 12.6.2022. So, the second talaq was pronounced without awaiting one ‘tuhr’ period and also without any attempts for reconciliation between the spouses by two arbitrators, one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his family. Thus, the second talaq pronounced without completing one ‘tuhr’ period and without any attempt for reconciliation is void, for the said reasons, the third talaq also is void. That apart, since the third talaq also pronounced on 22.6.2022 without waiting for a fresh ‘tuhr’ period in between the second and third talaq, the talaq effected by the petitioner is void otherwise. Therefore, there is no legal talaq in between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and they have been continuing as husband and wife in the eye of law and there is no legal divorce. 11. However, coming to the offence under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the Act, 2019, even though the talaq-e-sunnat attempted by the petitioner is void for the reasons already discussed, the intent behind the three talaqs pronounced by the petitioner is after reserving the right to revoke the same within 90 days by the husband. In such a case, it could not be held that a talaq-e-biddat or any similar form of talaq which is instantaneous and irrevocable, was pronounced by the petitioner, so as to penalize him under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the Act, 2019. In view of the matter, this petition succeeds. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.976/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, arising out of Crime No.390/2022 of Kannur City Police Station, Kannur, against the petitioner herein, stand quashed.