Sattar Sheikh vs Fazalu Bibi And Anr. on 14 March, 1974
Mrs. Moitra referred to two -cases, namely, Areekkal Abdurahiman Musliyar Rahim v. Neliyaparambath Ayissu, and the case of M. M, Abdul Khader v. Azeeza Bee, reported in (1944) 1 Mad LJ 17 : (1944) 45 Cri LJ 672 and contends that a Talak is not effective as against the wife if it is given in her absence till it is communicated to her and that she is entitled to maintenance upto the date of her knowledge of the Talak. These cases, in my opinion, do not come to any aid of the opposite party. It does not appear from the facts of any of the two cases that date of effect of Talaknama in writing fell for consideration of the court or that it was held that the Talaknama when executed in writing would be effective as against the wife, if it is given in her absence, only on communication to her.