‘Personal Law Can’t Override the Special Marriage Act’: Jharkhand HC on Muslim Man's Concealed First Marriage

The Jharkhand High Court, on October 6, 2025, dismissed an appeal by a Dhanbad-based pathologist, Md. Akil Alam, who argued that he was entitled to multiple marriages under his personal law despite having solemnised his second marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The man had approached the High Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights from his estranged second wife.

The division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Rajesh Kumar held that once a marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act, personal law cannot override its provisions, and concealment of an existing marriage renders such a union legally untenable.

Alam, aged 31, married for the second time on August 4, 2015, at Dhanbad under the Special Marriage Act. He later claimed that after a brief period of cohabitation at Amarpur, his second wife left for her parental home in Deoghar on October 10, 2015, and never returned. Alleging “withdrawal from his society without reasonable cause,” he filed a suit before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar, seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act.

In his petition, Alam said he repeatedly requested his wife to resume their marital life but she refused, demanding instead that he settle in Deoghar as a ghar jamai and leave his pathology practice at Govindpur. He maintained that he was “ready and willing to maintain her with dignity” and that the cause of action arose on December 27, 2019, when she refused to live with him.

The wife, however, described the suit as “misconceived and unwarranted.” She alleged that Alam had concealed his subsisting marriage, having already married another woman, and fathered children from that relationship. She further accused him of pressuring her father to transfer his property in Alam’s name and treating her with cruelty when the demand was refused.

The wife had also filed a maintenance case in 2018 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was allowed on December 5, 2019, directing Alam to pay Rs. 8,000 per month. She alleged that Alam failed to make regular payments and that she faced threats to her life from him and his first wife.

After recording evidence from both sides, the Family Court dismissed Alam’s suit on November 28, 2023, holding that he had a living spouse at the time of his second marriage and he had suppressed that material fact. Alam himself admitted during cross-examination that he had two daughters from his first marriage. His witnesses also corroborated this.

Moreover, the Family Court found his argument that his second wife already knew about his first marriage to be contradictory. Court noted that although he claimed to have disclosed his first marriage to his second wife, he admitted that he did not mention it before the Marriage Registrar, which “falsified his claim of transparency".

The court further noted that Alam had taken inconsistent stands, as he had earlier argued in the maintenance case that his second marriage was “irregular”. The Family Court observed that Alam could not “take advantage of his own wrong".

However, on appeal, Alam, represented by Advocate Manoj Kumar Sinha, argued that the Family Court erred in its findings and failed to appreciate that under Mohammadan Law, a man is permitted up to four marriages.

Deciding the appeal, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s conclusions, stating that once parties solemnise a marriage under the Special Marriage Act, it is governed exclusively by that Act and not by personal laws. Referring to Section 4(a) of the Act, the judges said it expressly requires that “neither party has a spouse living".

Citing the precedent of Anwar Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1989 All LJ 303), the bench noted that even if personal law allows polygamy, a Muslim man contracting another marriage under the SMA commits bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Court also relied on Suman Kundra v. Sanjeev Kundra (AIR 2015 Del 124) to reiterate that once a marriage is registered under the SMA, all marital rights and remedies flow solely from that statute.

Rejecting Alam’s plea that the Family Court’s findings were “perverse,” the High Court held there was no misreading of evidence and that the second wife’s decision to live apart was justified, given her husband’s concealment and the threats she faced.

Accordingly, finding no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s judgment, the bench dismissed Alam’s appeal in full.

“The appellant has failed to establish any element of perversity… the judgment requires no interference,” the court held.

Case Title: Md. Akil Alam vs. Tumpa Chakravarty

Order Date: October 6, 2025

Bench: Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Rajesh Kumar