The Kerala High Court ruled that no court can force a beggar to pay maintenance to his wife if she admits he is a beggar. It emphasized that it is the state’s duty to protect destitute wives and prevent begging.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a beggar cannot be compelled to give up his alms to support his destitute wife, in a case where a woman sought maintenance from her blind husband, who lived by begging.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan instead directed the State to ensure that the beggar’s wife receives food and clothing. He pointed out that the beggar had married twice under Muslim personal laws and called on the State to assist both wives.
The Court stated,
“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 petitioner’s wives are also provided with food and clothing,”
The judge referenced a Malayalam proverb, “Pichachattiyil kayyickkuvaararuthu “ meaning one should not take from the begging bowls of others, to illustrate that it would be unjust to force a man living on alms to support others.
The Court upheld a family court’s decision not to require the beggar to pay maintenance to his second wife but requested the State’s involvement to assist her instead.
The Court emphasized,
“As mentioned by the Family Court, no court can direct a beggar to pay maintenance to his wife when the wife admits that her husband is a beggar … It is the duty of the state to protect the destitute wives who are the victims of polygamy in the Muslim community. It is the duty of the elected government in a democratic country to ensure that its citizens do not beg,”
The case arose when a woman from Malappuram sought Rs.10,000 per month in maintenance from her husband, who earned approximately Rs.25,000 by begging and assisting neighbours with bill payments.
The family court dismissed her request, leading her to appeal to the High Court.
During the appeal, the Court considered allegations that the beggar husband had physically abused his wife but found these claims difficult to believe.
It remarked,
“How a blind man can assault a wife who is not blind is thought-provoking. The cruelty may be in different ways, like mental, physical, etc.,”
The Court also noted that the woman was the man’s second wife, and he had allegedly threatened to divorce her and marry a third woman.
It stated,
“The (woman’s husband) is also not a saint. Even though he is blind and a beggar … (he) has been threatening (his second wife) that he will soon enter into a third marriage with another lady. I do not want to make any further observations,”
Concerns were raised about successive marriages when the husband could not even support one wife.
The Court noted,
“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. 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 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. Proper counselling is necessary for these types of persons,”
Justice Kunhikrishnan stressed that Muslim personal law permits polygamy only for men who can fairly and equally support all their wives. He referenced verses from the Quran to assert that, when interpreted correctly, these verses advocate for monogamy as the norm, with polygamy being an exception.
He stated,
“There is a misconception that a Muslim man can marry more than one woman in all situations if he wishes to do so … The spirit and intention of (Quranic) verses is monogamy, and polygamy is only an exception,”
To clarify the legal position, the court referenced the Holy Quran, particularly Chapter 4, verses 3 and 129. From these verses, the court concluded that the essence of the scripture supports monogamy, with polygamy being an exception.
The judgment states,
“The spirit and intention of these verses is monogamy, and polygamy is only an exception,”
Further states,
“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 court further asserted,
“A person who has no capacity to maintain a second or third wife cannot marry again, even as per the customary law of Muslims.”
It called upon religious leaders and society to educate the “small minority among the Muslim community who are following polygamy, forgetting the verses of the Holy Quran.”
The Court ordered that a copy of its ruling be sent to the Kerala Social Welfare Department to ensure the beggar is counseled by qualified professionals, including religious leaders, to prevent him from entering another marriage.
The woman was represented by advocate EC Ahamed Fazil, while her estranged husband had advocates K Rajesh Kannan, Seetha P, and Ajith CR.