The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment, has clarified the scope of polygamy under Muslim personal law, stating that polygamy is not an absolute right for Muslim men. Instead, it is permitted only when a man has the financial and emotional capacity to maintain all wives equally.
The ruling, delivered by Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, draws from the Quran itself, underlining that the spirit of Islamic law favours monogamy, and polygamy is merely an exception. The Court stressed that men who cannot maintain even one wife fairly are not permitted to marry again.
This decision arose from a case where a Muslim woman sought maintenance from her husband — a blind man who survived on alms and had already married more than once despite lacking financial stability.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a Muslim woman, approached the Kerala High Court after the family court dismissed her plea for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Key facts of the case:
- The petitioner was the second wife of the respondent, a blind man who survived on donations from neighbours and by begging outside a mosque.
- The man resided with his first wife, while the petitioner alleged that he was threatening to divorce her by pronouncing talaq and was also planning to marry a third time.
- She further claimed that he was abusive and had failed to provide her maintenance.
- The family court rejected her plea, reasoning that a man who begs for a living cannot be forced to pay maintenance.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, the petitioner moved the High Court, seeking relief.
Kerala High Court’s Observations
While considering the appeal, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan upheld the family court’s decision but delivered broader observations on Muslim personal law, polygamy, and the role of the State.
1. Polygamy is conditional, not absolute
The Court referred to Quranic verses (Chapter 4:3 and 4:129) and stated:
- The Quran permits polygamy only if the husband can do justice to all wives.
- The intention of Islamic law is primarily monogamy, while polygamy is an exception for men capable of equal treatment.
- A man unable to maintain even one wife has no right to marry more than once.
2. Misconception about polygamy
The Court emphasized that there is a widespread misconception that Muslim men are permitted to marry multiple times under all circumstances. In reality, Islamic law strictly conditions such marriages on fairness and justice.
3. Majority of Muslims follow monogamy
The Court observed that most Muslims in India practice monogamy, even when financially capable of supporting more than one wife. The Court said:
“The 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.”
4. Duty of religious leaders and society
The Court urged that the minority within the community who still practice polygamy without understanding Islamic principles should be educated by religious leaders.
5. Role of the State
The Court laid down that:
- The State has a responsibility to counsel Muslim men who are incapable of maintaining multiple wives.
- The State must also protect women who become victims of polygamy due to their husbands’ inability to provide for them.
- The Court cited the example of a blind man marrying repeatedly despite having no resources. Such persons should be counselled appropriately by State authorities.
6. Counselling and protection for women
The Court directed the State to ensure:
- Proper counselling for the husband.
- Protection and basic needs such as food and clothing for his wives.
- Possible reunion of the husband with the petitioner if feasible.
Court’s Final Decision
The High Court upheld the family court’s rejection of the maintenance claim on practical grounds: a man who survives by begging cannot be compelled to pay maintenance.
However, the Court:
- Ordered the State to counsel the husband against marrying further.
- Directed the State to take measures to ensure that the petitioner (second wife) and the first wife are provided for.
- Emphasized the need to protect vulnerable women from the social and economic consequences of polygamy.
Legal and Social Significance
This ruling is significant for several reasons:
1. Clarification on Muslim Personal Law
The Court reiterated that polygamy is not an unrestricted right but a conditional allowance, thereby curbing misconceptions.
2. Protection of Women’s Rights
By stressing that the State must protect women who are victims of polygamy, the Court highlighted the importance of women’s dignity, equality, and welfare under the Constitution.
3. Constitutional Principles and Personal Law
While personal laws enjoy protection under the Constitution, the Court ensured that interpretations remain consistent with broader principles of justice, fairness, and equality.
4. Educational Aspect
The judgment recognizes that lack of awareness and education leads to misuse of polygamy. It encourages community leaders and society to spread awareness about the true spirit of Islamic law.
5. Role of the State in Social Justice
The Court made it clear that the State cannot remain passive when vulnerable women are abandoned in the guise of polygamy. Active counselling, monitoring, and welfare support are State obligations.
Related Precedents
- Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of UP (2015) – The Supreme Court held that polygamy is not an integral part of Islam and that personal laws are subject to constitutional morality.
- Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) – The Supreme Court upheld restrictions on polygamy under service rules, observing that polygamy is not an essential religious practice protected under Article 25.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – While striking down instant triple talaq, the Court emphasized gender justice and equality in Muslim personal law.
These precedents align with the Kerala High Court’s ruling, which places women’s rights and welfare above unrestricted personal law claims.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s ruling serves as a progressive interpretation of Muslim personal law, clarifying that polygamy is not a blanket right for Muslim men. Instead, it is permissible only when a man can fairly and equally maintain all wives, in line with the Quran’s emphasis on justice.
By highlighting the duty of the State to counsel men and protect women, the judgment bridges the gap between personal law and constitutional values of equality, dignity, and social justice.
Ultimately, the decision reiterates that monogamy is the rule and polygamy the exception, and any misuse of the latter must be checked through awareness, education, and State intervention.
Also Read
Bhima Koregaon Case: Supreme Court Refuses to Modify Bail Condition for Varavara Rao
