The Kerala High Court ruled that a Muslim man cannot refuse or reduce maintenance to his first wife by citing financial responsibility toward his second wife. The Court emphasized equal treatment and legal obligation under Muslim personal law and BNSS.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a judgment, the Kerala High Court has held that a Muslim man cannot evade his legal responsibility to pay maintenance to his first wife by citing his obligations towards his second wife or by claiming financial support from his son. The ruling was delivered by Justice Kausar Edappagath, reaffirming the rights of Muslim women under both Muslim personal law and Indian law.
Court’s Observation
While Muslim personal law permits polygamy, the Court emphasized that it is not an unconditional right. Justice Edappagath noted that polygamy is allowed only under exceptional circumstances, and a Muslim husband must treat all wives equally, not only in terms of love and respect but also financial support and maintenance.
“A Muslim husband has no special right to have more than one wife. Under Muslim law, polygamy is an exemption permitted only with the strict condition that all wives be treated equally,”
the Court observed.
The Court referred to Quranic verse IV:3, which states that men should marry only one wife if they fear they will be unable to deliver justice to all wives, highlighting that equality includes fair financial maintenance.
The judgment held that when a man chooses to marry again while his first marriage sustains, he must ensure that he has the means to support both wives equally.
“The fact that the husband has a second wife and must maintain her cannot be a reason to refuse or reduce maintenance to the first wife,”
the Court held.
Case Background
The dispute began when the first wife filed for maintenance in 2016, stating that she had no income to support herself while her husband had been working in the Gulf for over 40 years. A Family Court awarded her ₹5,000 per month, which the husband challenged.
He argued that he was currently unemployed and that his first wife was running a beauty parlour. He also claimed that he was burdened with caring for his second wife. Additionally, he filed a petition seeking maintenance from his son, which was rejected.
Court Findings
The High Court found that:
- The husband failed to provide evidence proving his first wife had income.
- He was financially supporting his second wife.
- His responsibility to his second wife does not diminish his duty to his first wife.
- The first wife’s separation was justified due to the husband’s second marriage without her consent.
The Court clarified that:
- Under Section 144(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),
a wife has an independent legal right to maintenance from her husband. - Support she may receive from her children does not reduce the husband’s liability.
The Kerala High Court upheld the Family Court’s maintenance order and dismissed the husband’s petitions, ruling that he must continue to pay maintenance to his first wife and has no claim for maintenance from his son.
Appearance:
For the husband: Advocates K Jagadeesh, V Renju and Nikhil K Gopinath
For the wife and her son: Advocates KN Abhilash, Sunil Nair Palakkad, Rishi Varma TR, Hrithik S Anand, V Sreejith
Case Title:
Vappinu v Fathima and connected case
RPFC NO. 398 OF 2018
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance