The Kerala High Court ruled that a divorced Muslim woman cannot claim maintenance from her ex-husband without proving the dissolution of her intervening marriage under the Halala doctrine. The court set aside the previous Family Court maintenance order.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a ruling clarifying the application of Muslim Personal Law and maintenance rights under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Kerala High Court has held that a divorced Muslim woman must provide strict proof of dissolution of her intervening marriage with another man for her remarriage with her former husband to be legally valid under the doctrine of Nikah Halala.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, while setting aside a maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram, ruled that long cohabitation cannot raise a presumption of a valid marriage when there exists a legal bar, such as a subsisting prior marriage. Without proof of dissolution of the intervening marriage, the alleged remarriage is void ab initio, disentitling the woman from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
ALSO READ: Divorced Muslim Woman Entitled to All Properties Given by Family or Husband During or After Marriage: Supreme Court
Issue Before the Court
The central legal question was:
Can a divorced Muslim woman claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC based on an alleged remarriage to her first husband without conclusively proving the dissolution of her intervening marriage with another man, as required under Nikah Halala?
Background of the Case
The parties, both governed by Muslim Personal Law, were originally married on May 9, 1983, and a daughter was born from their wedlock. The husband divorced the wife by pronouncing talaq on September 20, 1986, and remarried the following day. He later entered into a third marriage after the death of his second wife.
The wife subsequently married another man on April 4, 1991. In MC No. 270/2022, she claimed that her second marriage lasted only one year and that she later remarried her first husband on April 27, 2012, following Muslim customary rites. Based on her claim, the Family Court, Malappuram, granted her maintenance of ₹6,000 per month.
The husband challenged this order before the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Petitioner-Husband’s Contentions
- Denied the alleged remarriage in 2012
- Asserted that the wife failed to prove the dissolution of her second marriage
- Argued that without a valid Halala, any remarriage would be void
Respondent-Wife’s Contentions
- Claimed she divorced her second husband within one year
- Argued that Section 125 CrPC proceedings are summary in nature
- Relied on Supreme Court judgments such as:
- Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011)
- Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2019)
- Contended that long cohabitation raises a presumption of marriage
Court’s Analysis
Doctrine of Nikah Halala Under Muslim Law
The Court reaffirmed that under Muslim law:
“Remarriage between a divorced man and woman is permissible only if the woman marries another man, the marriage is consummated, and is legally dissolved — a doctrine known as Halala or Nikah Halala.”
Thus, proof of the intervening marriage, its consummation, and lawful dissolution is mandatory for a valid remarriage with the former husband.
The Court found serious evidentiary gaps:
- The wife did not disclose her second marriage in the original maintenance petition
- No evidence of the date, year, or mode of divorce from the second husband
- Admission that talaq may not have been communicated to the mosque
- Witnesses were minors at the relevant time and had no personal knowledge
The Court held:
“In the absence of proof of dissolution of the intervening marriage, the remarriage would be void, even if it is otherwise proved.”
Rejecting the argument of presumed marriage based on cohabitation, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including:
- Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K)
- Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav
- Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat
The Court clarified:
“The presumption of lawful marriage does not arise where there is an insurmountable obstacle, such as a subsisting marriage.”
Since the wife failed to prove dissolution of her second marriage, she was legally disqualified from marrying the petitioner and therefore could not invoke the presumption.
The Court also noted that:
- The alleged Nikah in 2012 was not properly proved
- The Khatib and witnesses were not examined
- The marriage register was not produced or summoned
While holding that the existing evidence was insufficient to grant maintenance, the High Court took a balanced approach, considering the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC proceedings.
Orders Passed:
- The maintenance order dated July 4, 2024, was set aside
- The matter was remanded to the Family Court, Malappuram
- The respondent-wife was granted an opportunity to:
- Prove the dissolution of her second marriage
- Prove the alleged remarriage with the petitioner
- The Family Court was directed to dispose of the matter within three months
Justice Edappagath observed:
“Considering the serious consequences on the status of the respondent, an opportunity must be granted to adduce further evidence.”
Case Title:
V.P ABDURAHIMAN versus C.SAFIYA
RPFC NO. 343 OF 2024
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
Click Here to Read More Reports On Muslim Personal Law
