In a writ petition filed before the Kerala High Court regarding the registration of a Muslim Man’s second marriage as per the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules 2008 (Rules), while his first marriage exists, a Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan considered the feelings of the Muslim women and dismissed the petition while deciding that when a Muslim man wishes to get his second marriage registered as per the said Rules while his first marriage is in existence, an opportunity of hearing must be given to the first wife regarding such registration.
The first marriage of the petitioner (husband) was registered before the jurisdictional registering authority, and two children were born to the couple. During the subsistence of the first marriage, the husband met petitioner 2, and married her with the consent of his first wife. Thereafter, petitioners 1 and 2 were living together, and two children were born to them.
Considering the future of the children, the petitioners decided to register their marriage with the Local Self Government Institution, but the Secretary, Thrikkaripur Grama Panchayath (Secretary) (respondent 2), refused to register it without providing any valid reason.
The Court referred to Jubairiya v. Saidalavi N. 2025 (6) KHC 224 and stated that even though a Muslim man can marry more than once as per their personal law, the second marriage can take place only in certain situations. Further, the Court opined that the Holy Quran or the Muslim Law does not permit an extramarital relationship with another lady when the first marriage is in existence.
It was said that a perusal of Rule 11 of the 2008 Rules shows that verification of the entries in the Memorandum is necessary from the Registrar’s side and that the parties to the marriage shall prepare a memorandum in duplicate in Form 1 appended to the Rules. It was noted that the marital status of the parties must be mandatorily mentioned in said form, and hence, a Registrar can easily determine whether an earlier marriage exists. However, the Court stated that the Registrar is not vested with the power to decide the validity of the marriage.
Further, while noting the silence of the Holy Quran regarding the consent of the first wife, the Court stated that it does not prohibit the option of obtaining consent. It was said that gender equality is a constitutional right of every citizen and that the Muslim scriptures collectively enjoin principles of justice, fairness, and transparency in marital dealings.
Thus, the Court opined that if a Muslim man wishes to register his second marriage as per the Rules, an opportunity of hearing must be given to the first wife, as a Muslim wife cannot be a silent spectator. It was said that the petitioner may marry again if his personal law permits, but if he wishes to register the second marriage, the law of the land will prevail. The Court stated that in such situations, religion is secondary and constitutional rights are supreme.
The Court stated that Muslim women may not disclose it to society, but 99.99% of them will be against their husband’s second marriage when their relationship is in existence, and their feelings cannot be ignored by the Court. Further, the Court said that if the first wife objects to the registration of the second marriage, the Registrar shall not register the second marriage, and the parties should be referred to a competent court to establish the validity of the said marriage as per their religious law.
The Court said that if the husband is neglecting his first wife or failing to maintain her and thereafter contracts a second marriage using his personal law, an opportunity of hearing would be beneficial to the first wife. It was found that the first wife was not even made a party in the present matter and thus, the Court dismissed the petition.
Lastly, the Court made it clear that the petitioners may file an appropriate application before the respondents, after which the Registrar shall send a notice to the first wife to provide her an opportunity to be heard.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Aswanth P.T., Mr. Manuel P.J.
For Respondents – Mr. V.N. Ramesan Nambisan, Ms. Jessy S. Salim
