The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment delivered on September 15, 2025, has ruled that a man whose livelihood is begging cannot be legally compelled to pay maintenance to his wife. While upholding a Family Court order to this effect, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan made extensive observations on the practice of polygamy within the Muslim community, emphasizing that it is an exception permissible only when a man can ensure justice for all wives. The court also directed the State’s Social Welfare Department to intervene to provide counselling and support to the parties involved.
Background of the Case
The matter came before the High Court as a revision petition filed by a woman challenging the order of the Family Court, Malappuram, which had dismissed her application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The petitioner had sought Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance from her husband, the respondent, who is a blind man. This was the second marriage for both parties. In her petition before the Family Court, she claimed that her husband earned approximately Rs. 25,000 per month from various sources, including begging in front of a mosque on Fridays and earning income by paying electricity and water bills for others. She also alleged cruelty, stating that the respondent would assault her and was threatening to pronounce Talaq to enter into a third marriage, despite his first wife also being alive.
The respondent, in his counter-affidavit, admitted that he is blind and that his “livelihood is the income from begging and the helping hands of his neighbours.” He subsequently did not appear for proceedings, and the Family Court proceeded with the case ex-parte.
Family Court and High Court Findings
The Family Court rejected the woman’s claim, finding that a beggar cannot be directed to pay maintenance. Upholding this decision, Justice Kunhikrishnan noted that the petitioner had married the respondent fully aware of his condition and source of livelihood.
The High Court expressed skepticism regarding the petitioner’s allegations of physical assault, observing, “How a blind man can assault a wife who is not blind is thought-provoking… a blind man assaulting a lady who is not blind will not usually happen unless she surrenders to the assault of the blind man.”
However, the court stated that it could not confine its judgment merely to the question of maintenance. Justice Kunhikrishnan remarked, “But this court cannot stop there by confirming the impugned order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Courts are not Robots. Human beings sit in courts as judges. The court cannot shut its eyes to the facts in this case.”
Court’s Analysis on Polygamy in Muslim Law
The court took serious note of the fact that the respondent, a blind beggar, had two wives and was allegedly planning a third marriage. Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that such situations arise from a “misunderstanding of Muslim law” and a “lack of education.”
To elucidate the position of law, the court quoted from the Holy Quran, specifically Chapter 4, verses 3 and 129. Based on these verses, the court concluded that the spirit of the scripture is monogamy and that polygamy is only an exception.
“The spirit and intention of these verses is monogamy, and polygamy is only an exception,” the judgment reads. “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 opined, “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 for religious leaders and society to educate the “small minority among the muslim community who are following polygamy, forgetting the verses of the Holy Quran.”
Direction to the State
Highlighting the State’s duty to protect its citizens, the court stated that begging should not be a means of livelihood and that destitute individuals must be cared for. “It is the duty of the State to see that if a blind man who is begging… is marrying one after another without even having knowledge of the fundamental principles of Muslim customary law, he is counselled appropriately,” Justice Kunhikrishnan directed.
The court ordered that the respondent be provided counselling by the Social Welfare Department, with the assistance of competent counsellors and religious leaders, to prevent another marriage. It also emphasized that the government should ensure that the petitioner and the respondent’s first wife are provided with food and clothing.
Final Order
The High Court disposed of the revision petition by confirming the Family Court’s order dated November 23, 2020. It directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, State of Kerala, for taking appropriate action in accordance with the law.
