Ahmad Kasim Molla vs Khatun Bibi on 14 August, 1931
20. As I have already said, the deed was duly executed in the presence of witnesses and registered under the Registration Act, but at the time of the execution neither the kazi nor the wife was present and it was not brought to the knowledge of the wife immediately. A few months after the wife had obtained the maintenance order the husband applied to the Magistrate for cancellation of the order for maintenance on the ground that he had already divorced his wife and that he was no longer bound to maintain her. It was held that not only was the talaknama valid, but that it put an end to any right on the part of the wife to receive maintenance in respect of herself although, on the facts of that particular case, the order of the Magistrate was not disturbed, because the Court was of opinion that the amount ordered to be paid was no more than sufficient for the maintenance of the child of the marriage. It seems to be clear therefore that not only can a Mahomedan divorce his wife without assigning any reasons, but also that a talak is valid, where it is made by a written instrument, notwithstanding that it is not brought to the knowledge of the wife; and the only question which can arise is with regard to the wife's maintenance during such period as may elapse until the fact of the execution of the talaknama actually comes to the knowledge of the wife. The matter is dealt with in the case of Asha Bibi v. Kadi Ibrahim Rowther [1909] 33 Mad 22 where it is held that it is not necessary that the talak or words of repudiation should be addressed directly to the wife to constitute a valid divorce, but
the words should refer to the wife though if they be not communicated to her at the time a question may possibly arise as to whether she is not entitled until she comes to know of the divorce to bind her husband by certain acts such as pledging his credit for obtaining the means of subsistence.