The Kerala High Court has ruled that a Muslim husband cannot evade his statutory obligation to maintain his first wife by pleading financial inability due to a second marriage or by claiming that the wife is being looked after by her son. The Court held that the right of a wife to claim maintenance is independent of her children’s obligation to support her.
The Single Bench of Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed two revision petitions filed by the husband, confirming the Family Court’s orders granting maintenance to his first wife and rejecting his claim for maintenance from his son.
Background of the Case
The legal battle involved two petitions:
- RPFC No. 398 of 2018: Challenged the order of the Family Court, Thrissur, which directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000 to his first wife.
- RPFC No. 366 of 2024: Challenged the order of the Family Court, Kunnamkulam, which dismissed the husband’s petition seeking maintenance from his son.
The marriage between the husband and the first wife took place on April 20, 1983. The couple has three children. The parties have been living separately since 2015, and the husband has admittedly contracted a second marriage and resides with his second wife. The son resides with his mother.
Submissions of the Parties
The counsel for the husband argued that he is jobless and lacks the means to provide maintenance. He contended that his first wife runs a beauty parlour and earns a livelihood, although the Court noted that “absolutely no evidence has been produced to substantiate the same.”
Furthermore, the husband argued that since the son provides maintenance to the wife, the claim against him is not legally sustainable. He also submitted that the wife left his company without sufficient reason in 2015, disentitling her to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Finally, he pleaded that he has to maintain his second wife.
Conversely, the wife contended that she has no job or source of income, whereas the husband, having worked in the Gulf for over 40 years, has sufficient means.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Edappagath rejected the husband’s contentions, emphasizing the principles of Muslim law and the statutory provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the CrPC.
On Polygamy and Maintenance
Addressing the husband’s plea regarding his second marriage, the Court observed that under Muslim law, monogamy is the rule and polygamy is an exception, permissible only if the husband can deal “justly” with all wives.
“The term ‘to do justly with all wives’ implies not only the equality in love and affection but also the equality in maintenance. Therefore, 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.”
On Son’s Obligation vs. Husband’s Liability
The Court clarified the scheme under Section 144 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 125 of the CrPC). The Judge stated that a wife’s right to claim maintenance from her husband is independent of her children’s obligation to maintain her.
“A mother can claim maintenance from her husband even if her children are maintaining her. 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.”
On Separate Living
The Court addressed the husband’s argument that the wife was not entitled to maintenance because she refused to live with him. Citing the decision in Haseena v. Suhaib (2025 (1) KHC 543), the Court held that a second marriage is a valid ground for the first wife to live separately.
“The second marriage of a Muslim husband without the consent of his first wife is a sufficient reason for the latter to live separately from the former. In other words, a Muslim wife who resides separately from her husband on his contracting a second marriage is not disentitled from claiming her statutory right of maintenance.”
Decision
The High Court affirmed the findings of the Family Court, stating that the wife is entitled to maintenance from the husband, and the husband is not entitled to maintenance from the son. Finding “no illegality or impropriety” in the lower court’s decisions, the High Court dismissed both revision petitions.
Case Details
- Case Title: Vappinu v. Fathima & Connected Case
- Case No: RPFC Nos. 398 of 2018 & 366 of 2024
- Bench: Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
- Appearances: Adv. K. Jagadeesh for the Petitioner; Advs. Sunil Nair Palakkat, K.N. Abhilash for the Respondents.
