The Kerala High Court has ruled that multiple marriages by Muslim men without financial capacity to support their wives cannot be legally recognised, while dismissing a maintenance petition from a woman whose husband depends on begging for survival.
Kerala High Court imposes law against polygamy
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the judgment after a 39-year-old woman from Perinthalmanna sought Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance from her 46-year-old husband from Kumbadi, Palakkad. The Family Court had previously rejected her plea, citing the husband’s inability to pay due to his dependence on begging.
The case involved complex circumstances. The petitioner, identified as the man’s second wife, alleged that despite being blind and surviving through begging, her husband threatened to marry a third woman. Court records showed the respondent earns approximately Rs 25,000 from various sources, including begging, while living with his first wife.
Court states Muslim Law as well
Justice Kunhikrishnan emphasized financial responsibility as a prerequisite for multiple marriages. “A person who has no capacity to maintain a second or third wife cannot marry again, even as per the customary law of Muslims,” the court observed.
The judge criticized uninformed polygamous practices, stating: “These types of marriages happen in the Muslim community because of the lack of education, lack of knowledge of the customary law of Muslims. A court of law cannot simply recognise the first, second or third marriage of a Muslim man when he has no capacity to maintain his wives and one of the wives approached the court with a petition claiming maintenance.”
Here’s what Quran says over Polygamy:
Referencing Islamic scripture, the court noted that the Quran promotes monogamy with polygamy as an exception. “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,” it stated.
The court directed social welfare intervention, ordering: “The department should provide counselling to the respondent, assisted by the competent counsellors, including religious leaders.”
While rejecting the maintenance petition, Justice Kunhikrishnan mandated state support: “I am of the considered opinion that this court cannot direct a beggar to pay maintenance to his wife. However, the government should ensure that the petitioners’ wives are also provided with food and clothing.”
