Muslim Man Cannot Deny Maintenance to First Wife Citing Second Marriage: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court held that a Muslim man cannot avoid his statutory liability to maintain his first wife by citing obligations toward his second wife or by relying on the fact that their son was providing for her.

Justice Kauser Edappagath ruled that the husband’s independent duty under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 144 BNSS) remains unaffected, emphasising that polygamy under Muslim law is permissible only under strict conditions, including the ability to treat all wives equitably. The Court observed that “a Muslim husband who contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage cannot contend that he has no means to maintain his first wife. The fact that the husband has a second wife and is liable to maintain her cannot be a factor in denying maintenance to the first wife or reducing the quantum of maintenance she is entitled to.”

It was further noted that the statutory obligation of a husband under Section 125(1)(a) CrPC is independent of the liability of children under Section 125(1)(d), and therefore “the fact that the son or daughter of a woman has sufficient means and provides maintenance to her would not absolve the husband of his independent statutory obligation… to support his wife if she needs it.”

The Court relied on the principle that the second marriage of a Muslim husband without the consent of the first wife constitutes sufficient reason for her to live separately without losing her right to maintenance, referring to the precedent in Haseena v. Suhaib, 2025 (1) KHC 543.

The parties in the lead matter had been married since 1983 and had three children.

The record showed that the couple began living apart in 2015, with the wife residing with their son.

The husband later contracted a second marriage and chose to live with his second wife. The wife approached the Family Court in Thrissur in M.C. No. 89 of 2016 seeking monthly maintenance, asserting that she had no independent source of income and that the husband possessed sufficient means owing to his long working tenure in the Gulf.

The Family Court accepted her claim and granted her a monthly sum of Rs. 5,000 by order dated April 3, 2018. This order was challenged by the husband in RPFC No. 398 of 2018.

The husband’s defence before the High Court was that he had no means to support his first wife, as he was unemployed after returning from the Gulf and was compelled to maintain his second wife. He further alleged that the wife ran a beauty parlour and earned independently, and that their son was already providing for her.

He also contended that his first wife had left the marital home without sufficient cause and was therefore disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. Counsel appearing for the wife refuted these assertions, pointing out that the husband had produced no evidence of her alleged income and reiterating that the statutory liability of a husband cannot be overridden by claims of financial hardship or by obligations toward a second spouse.

The Court examined the materials on record and noted that the wife had specifically denied having any income. It found that the husband had worked in the Gulf for more than forty years and would “no doubt have sufficient savings,” rejecting the narrative that he lacked means.

On the husband’s claim that he had been forced out of his home, the Court observed that the reasons for his second marriage were irrelevant to the determination of maintenance rights, and the only material fact was that he was now maintaining his second wife.

The Court stressed that polygamy under Muslim personal law is not a vested right but an exception permitted only under strict conditions, including the capacity to deal justly and equitably with all wives.

It referred to Quranic injunctions and principles of Muslim personal law to underscore that equal treatment includes equal maintenance, making it impermissible for a husband to reduce or deny the first wife’s entitlement by citing expenses incurred for the second wife.

On the argument that the son was maintaining the mother, the Court held that the statutory framework creates separate and independent obligations upon husband and children. It clarified that a mother may claim maintenance from her husband even if she is receiving support from her children, and such support does not absolve the husband from his duty.

This interpretation, the Court stated, flows directly from the structure of Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS), which differentiates between the obligations of a husband and those of children.

The Court also rejected the contention that the wife had left the husband without sufficient reason. It held that the husband’s unilateral second marriage constituted a valid and sufficient ground for the wife to reside separately while still retaining her statutory right to maintenance.

The Bench relied on Haseena v. Suhaib to affirm that a Muslim wife living apart due to the husband contracting a second marriage remains entitled to maintenance.

In the connected matter, RPFC No. 366 of 2024, the Court upheld the Family Court’s decision dismissing the husband’s petition seeking maintenance from his son, finding no illegality in the conclusion that he was not entitled to such relief.

Both revision petitions were dismissed.

Case Title: Vappinu v. Fathima and Muhammed Vappinu v. Vasif Muhammed

Bench: Justice Kauser Edappagath

Date of Judgment: 12.11.2025