The Kerala High Court recently emphasized that a Muslim wife who chooses to reside separately due to her husband's second marriage retains her statutory right to claim maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This landmark ruling reiterates the equitable treatment of wives as mandated by Muslim personal law.
Case Background
The case in question involved the petitioner-wife, Haseena, and her two children, who sought an enhancement in the maintenance granted by the Family Court, Tirur. The original maintenance amounts were set at ₹4,000 per month for the wife and ₹1,500 each for the children. Dissatisfied with the quantum, they approached the High Court for revision.
The respondent-husband, Suhaib, argued that his current income was insufficient to meet the increased demand. He claimed to be working in a bakery in India, earning ₹8,000 per month, after returning from a lucrative job in the Gulf. However, the petitioner presented evidence suggesting that the husband earned around ₹1,25,000 per month from his overseas employment and other sources.
Also Read - Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Into Custodial Torture While Dismissing State's Appeal
Court’s Observations
Justice Kauser Edappagath, presiding over the case, made several critical observations:
- Statutory Maintenance Rights:
- The court reiterated that even though Muslim personal law permits a man to contract a second marriage, it does not absolve him of his responsibility to treat both wives equally and maintain them.
- "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," the court noted, citing the precedent Badruddin v. Aisha Begum (1957).
- Income Assessment:
- The respondent failed to provide credible evidence of his current income or physical ailments that could justify his inability to provide increased maintenance.
- The court held that an able-bodied man is presumed capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his family unless proven otherwise. "The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show he is unable to maintain the family," stated the court.
- Equity and Adverse Inference:
- Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), the High Court observed that failure to disclose income details would result in an adverse inference against the respondent.
Also Read - Supreme Court Explains NDPS Act Section 52A: Proof Needed to Support Allegations of Non-Compliance
Decision
Considering the evidence and circumstances, the court enhanced the monthly maintenance to ₹8,000 for the petitioner-wife and ₹3,000 each for the children. The judgment underscores that a husband’s responsibility to his family is paramount, regardless of subsequent marital commitments or personal claims of financial hardship.
Key Takeaways
- Equal Treatment of Wives: Muslim personal law mandates equitable treatment of wives, and second marriages do not negate a husband's financial obligations to the first wife.
- Presumption of Earning Capacity: The court presumes an able-bodied individual can earn sufficiently to support their dependents, and this presumption can only be rebutted with concrete evidence.
- Adverse Inference Principle: Courts may draw adverse inferences against parties who fail to provide credible evidence of their income or financial status.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the rights of women under Muslim personal law and statutory provisions like CrPC and BNSS. It highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fairness and equality in family law matters.
"An able-bodied husband must be presumed capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children." – Justice Kauser Edappagath
"The fact that the husband has a second wife cannot be a factor in denying maintenance to the first wife or reducing her entitlement." – Kerala High Court
