Can’t a Muslim man marry without informing his first wife, what is the law?

Admin — Thu, 06 Nov 2025 16:42:46 +0000

Kerala High Court has given an important decision. In fact, the Kerala High Court gave a historic decision saying that a Muslim man cannot register his second marriage without informing his first wife. As long as the first marriage is valid and the wife is alive. The court has made it clear that before registering the second marriage, it will be necessary for the man to send a notice to his first wife and obtain her consent. If the first wife objects to this, the registrar will have to send the case to the civil court to confirm the validity of the second marriage. The court has cited Kerala Marriage Registration Rules 2008 for this.

What was the matter?

This decision of the Kerala High Court came on the petition of a Muslim man and his second wife. Who had challenged the decision of Thrikkaripur Gram Panchayat of Kasargod district of Kerala. The Panchayat had refused to register the man’s second marriage. The petitioner had admitted that he had a first wife and two children. He claimed that he had married for the second time in 2017 only with the consent of his first wife and he only wanted to secure the property rights of his second wife and the children born to him. On this petition, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan said that Muslim personal law allows a man to have more than one marriage. But this cannot take away anyone’s constitutional right to a normal and fair trial.

Kerala High Court said that when a man wants to register a marriage, he should respect the constitutional orders. According to the rules of 2008, a Muslim man cannot register his second marriage without informing his first wife, with whom his marriage is still valid. The court further said that if a husband neglects his wife, does not maintain her or tortures her and then marries a second time citing personal law, then it would be fair to give the first wife a chance to be heard. Justice Kunhikrishnan said that gender equality is a constitutional right of every citizen; At the same time, men are not superior to women in this, it is not only a women’s issue but also a human issue.

Court’s comment on Quran and Shariat also

The court said that according to the Quran, more than one marriage is valid but the husband has to do justice to all the wives. Although the Quran does not require the consent of the first wife for a second marriage, informing her and taking her opinion is in line with the principles of justice and transparency. The court found that the petitioner did not make his first wife a party in the case, hence his petition was rejected.

However, the court has allowed that he can apply for re-registration. In such a situation, the register will have to send a notice to the first wife and give her an opportunity to present her views. At the same time, this decision of the court is being considered as a news of relief for those women whose husbands remarry without their knowledge. The High Court has made it clear that constitutional rights are above personal law and no woman’s rights can be taken away without hearing her.

Also read: Bihar Assembly Election 2025: How does EVM work in areas where there is no electricity? Is voting conducted through ballot paper?

Source link

The post Can’t a Muslim man marry without informing his first wife, what is the law? appeared first on .

Challenging the decision of Ram Mandir proved costly for the lawyer, the court imposed a fine of Rs 6 lakh

Admin — Sun, 26 Oct 2025 03:47:12 +0000

Delhi’s Patiala House Court has given a big blow to lawyer Mahmood Pracha by rejecting his petition in which he had demanded to declare the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict nullified. The court has imposed a fine of Rs 6 lakh on the lawyer, terming the petition as ‘frivolous’, misleading and an abuse of the judicial process.

District Judge Dharmendra Rana said in his order that the petition filed by Mahmood Pracha is not only beyond the facts but it also raises questions on the credibility of the judicial system. The court said that it appears that the petitioner did not read the Ayodhya verdict completely, otherwise such confusion would not have arisen. The court admitted that this case was filed only for the purpose of creating publicity and spreading misunderstanding.

Lawyer misinterpreted Justice Chandrachud’s speech

In the petition, Pracha had claimed that the then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had said in a speech that the Ayodhya verdict was based on the solution given by Lord Shri Ram Lala. On this, the court clarified that Justice Chandrachud had only said that he had prayed to God for guidance and not received any solution from any party. The court said that the lawyer filed the case without understanding the difference between God and juristic personality i.e. a legally recognized deity.

Court expressed displeasure and gave strict warning

Making a strong comment, the court said that when the protectors become the predators, then the situation becomes worrying. The court said that such negligence cannot be expected from a senior lawyer. The court also added that it is necessary to take strict action against such baseless cases so that the time and resources of the judicial system are not wasted.

Reference to Judge Protection Act

Patiala House Court clearly said in its decision that this case is a bar under the ‘Judges Protection Act, 1985’. According to this Act, no civil or criminal action can be taken against any judge for judicial work. Upholding the order of the lower court, the court increased the amount of fine from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 6 lakh and said that it is everyone’s responsibility to maintain the dignity and sanctity of the judiciary.