Muslim Man Without Means To Maintain A Second Wife Cannot Marry Again: Kerala High Court
The High Court held that a Muslim man cannot enter into successive marriages without the capacity to provide for his wives, directing the State to provide counselling to such men and protection to women left destitute in such circumstances.
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court observed that even under customary Muslim laws, a Muslim man who lacks the financial capacity to maintain his wives cannot contract further marriages.
The High Court was hearing a revision petition filed by a woman challenging the order of a Family Court, which had rejected her claim for maintenance from her blind husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A Bench comprising Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while deciding the matter, remarked: “I am of the considered opinion that his successive marriage, when he was only a beggar, cannot be accepted at all, even as per the customary law of Muslims. These types of marriages happen in the Muslim community because of the lack of education, lack of knowledge of the customary law of Muslims, etc.”
Advocate E.C. Ahamed Fazil appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate K. Rajesh Kannan represented the respondent.
Background
The petitioner, the second wife of the respondent, filed a petition seeking maintenance, asserting that her husband, though blind, earned an income of around ₹25,000 through begging and that she required ₹10,000 as maintenance.
She had further alleged cruelty and threats of divorce (Talaq), along with the respondent’s intention to remarry a third time.
The respondent, while denying her claims, admitted that he was blind and dependent on begging and neighbours for survival. He had not contested the proceedings further, leading to an ex parte order before the Family Court, which dismissed the petitioner’s plea on the ground that a beggar could not be directed to provide maintenance.
Court’s Observations
The Kerala High Court upheld the Family Court’s finding, taking note of the fact that the petitioner married the respondent knowing fully well that he was blind and that his source of income was begging. The Court noted that “…as far as the impugned order is concerned, as observed by the Family Court, I am of the considered opinion that this Court cannot direct a beggar to pay maintenance to his wife.”
Expressing doubt over the allegation that a blind man had assaulted his wife, the Court agreed that cruelty could take different forms, but concluded that the impugned order could not be interfered with.
Despite rejecting the claim for maintenance, the Kerala High Court made broader observations on polygamy under Muslim customary laws. The Bench noted that the respondent had contracted a second marriage while his first wife was alive and was threatening to marry again.
The Bench referred to Quranic verses (Chapter 4:3 and 4:129) to emphasise that “…the spirit and intention of these verses is monogamy, and polygamy is only an exception. The Holy Quran greatly stresses ‘justice’. If a Muslim man can give justice to his first wife, second wife, third wife and fourth wife, then only marriage more than once is permissible.”
The Bench further underlined that widespread misconceptions about Muslim laws led to such marriages, stressing the need for education and counselling, noting that “…majority of the people in the muslim community are followers of Monogamy, even if they have the wealth to maintain more than one wife. That is the true spirit of the Holy Quran also. The small minority among the muslim community who are following polygamy, forgetting the verses of the Holy Quran, are to be educated by the religious leaders and society.”
The Court also drew inspiration from the teachings of Sree Narayana Guru, observing that “Daivadasakam is a collection of ten verses on God. In other words, it is a universal prayer which does not refer to a specific deity but a universal concept of God based on ‘Advaita philosophy”, while highlighting that it is the duty of the state to see that the destitutes are protected.
The Court noted that begging was not recognised by the State and that the government had a duty to ensure no citizen was forced to beg for survival. It also emphasised the responsibility of the State to protect women who become victims of polygamy in the Muslim community under such circumstances.
The Court directed that the Social Welfare Department take appropriate measures, observing: “Appropriate counselling should be given to the respondent to avoid another marriage by him, resulting in another woman being left as a destitute wife. The Department concerned of the government should provide counselling to the respondent, assisted by competent counsellors, including religious leaders.”
The Court further directed that the interests of both the destitute wives of the petitioner be protected, in accordance with the law.
Conclusion
The High Court confirmed the Family Court’s order dismissing the maintenance claim. The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Kerala, for appropriate action.
Cause Title: Jubairiya VS Saidalavi (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:68937)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate E.C. Ahamed Fazil
Respondent: Advocates K. Rajesh Kannan, Seetha P, and Ajith C.R.
