Can’t Deny Maintenance To First Wife Merely Because Muslim Man Has A Second Wife; Wife Residing Separately Has Statutory Right Of Maintenance: Kerala HC
The Revision Petition was filed before the Kerala High Court by the petitioner-wife challenging the order passed by the Family Court.

The Kerala High Court granted enhanced maintenance to a Muslim woman and emphasized that just because the husband has a second wife and is liable to maintain her cannot be a factor in denying maintenance to the first wife or reducing the quantum of maintenance she is entitled to.
The Revision Petition was filed before the Kerala High Court by the petitioner-wife challenging the order passed by the Family Court.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath clarified, “The Muslim Personal Law, though, permits the husband to contract a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage in exceptional circumstances, specifically mandates that the husband is bound to treat both wives equally and equitably.”
Advocate Jamsheed Hafiz represented the Petitioners.
Factual Background
The 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the 1st petitioner, born in wedlock with the respondent. The petitioners filed a maintenance case against the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs 10,000 to the 1st petitioner, Rs 8,000 to the 2nd petitioner and Rs 6,000 to the 3rd petitioner. The Family Court, after trial, granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs 4,000 to the 1st petitioner and Rs 1,500 each to the two children. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance granted, the petitioners approached the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts and the submissions, the Bench noticed that it was the definite case of the petitioners that the respondent is employed at Gulf and earns Rs 1 lakh per month. The respondent admitted that he was employed at Gulf, but, according to him, he returned from Gulf and now working as an employee in a bakery in Madras. However, no piece of evidence was produced by the respondent to prove where he works now and what his income was. This fact was only within his exclusive knowledge.
“An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family…If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court”, the Bench said while referring to the judgment in Rajnesh v Neha & Another (2021).
Since the respondent failed to produce any material to prove his present employment and income, the Bench drew an adverse inference against him. The petitioner had given positive evidence that the respondent is earning Rs 1,25,000 per month.
One of the contentions raised by the Respondent was that the 1st petitioner-wife left his company, refused to live with him without any sufficient reason and hence she was not entitled to maintenance. It was also contended that with the meagre income he gets from his present job, he has to maintain his second wife as well.
The Bench referred to the judgment in Badruddin v Aisha Begum (1957) and said, “A Muslim wife who resides separately from her husband on his contracting a second marriage is not disentitled from claiming her statutory right of maintenance under CrPC/BNSS.”
Thus, the Bench allowed the Revision Petition and enhanced the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court to Rs 8,000 to the 1st petitioner and Rs 3,000 each to the two children.
Cause Title: A & Ors. v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:2953)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Jamsheed Hafiz, K.K. Nesna