In a thought-provoking judgment delivered in Jubairiya v. Saidalavi (RPFC No. 221 of 2021, decided on 15 September 2025), the Kerala High Court addressed the delicate issue of polygamy under Muslim law in India. The Court, presided over by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, dealt with a revision petition filed by a woman seeking maintenance from her husband, a blind man who survived by begging. While the Family Court had denied her relief on the ground that a beggar cannot be directed to pay maintenance, the High Court used the case as an occasion to examine the wider legal, religious, and social implications of polygamy.
The judgment not only reaffirmed the principle that maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), (now Section 144 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is conditioned by the ability of the husband to support his wife but also underscored a larger doctrinal truth: polygamy in Islam is not an unfettered right but a conditional exception, permissible only when a man has the capacity and fairness to maintain multiple wives equally.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Jubairiya, was the second wife of Saidalavi, a 46-year-old blind man who, according to her, earned his livelihood primarily through begging. She alleged that despite his disability and poverty, Saidalavi had threatened to marry a third woman after pronouncing talaq on her. At the time of their marriage, his first wife was alive and still cohabiting with him.
Feeling neglected and unsupported, Jubairiya approached the Family Court, Malappuram, under Section 125 CrPC, seeking ₹10,000 per month as maintenance. She contended that although her husband begged for alms, he managed to earn around ₹25,000 per month and could therefore maintain her.
The Family Court, however, dismissed her petition. It held that a person surviving on alms could not reasonably be directed to pay maintenance. Aggrieved, she approached the Kerala High Court in revision.
Issues Before the Court
The case raised multiple intertwined questions:
- Whether a husband with no steady income, surviving by begging, can be directed to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- Whether the practice of polygamy under Muslim personal law permits multiple marriages irrespective of the man’s capacity to maintain his wives.
- What is the role of the State and society in preventing destitution caused by unregulated polygamy and poverty.
- How religious texts, particularly the Quran, condition the practice of polygamy upon justice and equal treatment.
Court’s Analysis
Ability to Pay Maintenance
The Court began by acknowledging the legal position under Section 125 CrPC—a secular, welfare-oriented provision designed to prevent destitution by compelling those with sufficient means to support their dependents. However, the Court agreed with the Family Court that a man who admittedly lived by begging could not be forced to provide maintenance.
Justice Kunhikrishnan highlighted the petitioner’s own admission that her husband was blind and dependent on alms. While her plight as a neglected wife deserved sympathy, the law could not impose an impossible financial burden upon a person without means.
Conditional Nature of Polygamy in Islam
Moving beyond the immediate dispute, the Court used the occasion to dispel a common misconception—that Muslim men enjoy an unrestricted right to marry multiple women. Citing Quranic verses (Chapter 4:3 and Chapter 4:129), the Court emphasised that polygamy is only permissible under strict conditions:
- Justice and equality among wives are mandatory.
- The Quran itself acknowledges that perfect equality is nearly impossible to achieve.
- Thus, the spirit of the Quran favours monogamy as the rule and polygamy as the exception.
The Court remarked:
“A person who has no capacity to maintain a second or third wife cannot marry again, even as per the customary law of Muslims”.
This observation aligns with previous judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court’s recognition in Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 369, that polygamy is not an integral part of Islam and can be regulated in the interests of social welfare.
Societal and State Responsibility
Justice Kunhikrishnan went further, stressing that courts are not robots and cannot ignore the human realities behind disputes. The judgment underscored:
- Begging is not a recognised means of livelihood in the State, and the government has a duty to ensure that no citizen is forced to beg for survival.
- The State must provide food, clothing, and basic dignity to such persons and their dependents.
- Counselling is necessary for individuals who misunderstand religious law and indulge in multiple marriages without the means to support their spouses.
The Court even invoked the teachings of Sree Narayana Guru, particularly his Daivadasakam, which emphasises universal welfare through food and clothing for all. By blending legal analysis with spiritual and social philosophy, the judgment reinforced the broader constitutional duty of a welfare state.
Directions Issued
Ultimately, the High Court confirmed the Family Court’s refusal to order maintenance, but it directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Kerala, so that:
- The petitioner and other affected wives could be provided support by the State.
- The respondent could receive counselling, with the involvement of religious leaders if necessary, to prevent further misuse of personal law.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
- Maintenance Denied – Courts cannot compel a beggar to pay maintenance, as it would impose an impossible obligation.
- Polygamy Not Unfettered – A Muslim man cannot contract multiple marriages without the means to maintain his wives; justice and equality are the essential preconditions.
- Monogamy is the Spirit of Islam – The Quran stresses fairness, which makes monogamy the default rule and polygamy the exception.
- Role of the State – Government must protect destitute wives, prevent begging, and provide counselling to those misusing religious law.
- Integration of Faith and Philosophy – The Court invoked both Islamic verses and the universal teachings of Sree Narayana Guru to highlight the humanistic foundation of law.
Broader Implications
- For Muslim Personal Law: This ruling reinforces the interpretation that Islamic law does not give men an absolute license for polygamy. Courts in India have consistently highlighted that polygamy must be justifiable and conditioned upon the husband’s ability to treat all wives fairly. The Kerala HC judgment aligns with this progressive reading.
- For Women’s Rights: The judgment indirectly strengthens women’s rights by limiting exploitative polygamy. By holding that destitute wives must be protected by the State, it also recognizes the welfare dimension of matrimonial law beyond the family unit.
- For State Policy: The Court’s insistence on State responsibility to prevent begging and protect vulnerable families places a duty upon governments to strengthen social security schemes. It also calls for collaboration with religious leaders to spread awareness about the correct interpretation of personal law.
- For Judicial Philosophy: The case is notable for its humanistic approach. Rather than mechanically applying statutes, the Court contextualized the dispute within religion, philosophy, and social welfare, thereby demonstrating how Indian courts often balance personal law with constitutional morality.
Conclusion
Kerala High Court’s decision in Jubairiya v. Saidalavi (2025) is a remarkable exposition of law, faith, and social justice. While the Court upheld the practical impossibility of directing a beggar to pay maintenance, it turned the spotlight on the misuse of polygamy under Muslim law.
By affirming that polygamy is conditional upon justice and capacity, the Court corrected a long-standing misconception and aligned religious interpretation with constitutional morality. Its invocation of both the Quran and Sree Narayana Guru highlighted a common thread—that true faith, like true law, is rooted in fairness, responsibility, and compassion.
This judgment thus stands as a reminder that personal laws cannot be wielded as tools of exploitation. They must be understood in their spirit, harmonised with constitutional ideals, and enforced with sensitivity to the lived realities of the vulnerable.
In essence, polygamy under Muslim law is not a privilege but a responsibility—and without the ability to maintain multiple wives equally, it remains impermissible.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams