Madras High Court held in Mukmuthu Sha v. Mohammed Afrin Ba

This is a complex and controversial topic that may have different opinions and interpretations. According to some sources, Muslim law, or Sharia law, allows a man to have up to four wives at a time, but only if he can treat them all equally and fairly. This practice is known as polygyny, which is a form of polygamy (having more than one spouse).

However, some Muslim scholars and activists argue that polygyny is not a religious obligation but a social custom that was prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabia and other regions. They claim that the Quran does not explicitly endorse polygyny but rather regulates and restricts it in certain circumstances. They also point out that the Prophet Muhammad’s first and most beloved wife, Khadija, was his only wife for 25 years until she died, and that he married multiple wives later in life for political and humanitarian reasons, not for lust or pleasure.

Some Muslim women’s rights advocates also challenge the notion that polygyny is fair and equal to women, as it often leads to jealousy, rivalry, neglect, and abuse among co-wives. They cite examples of how polygyny has been misused and abused by men who exploit women for their own selfish interests without fulfilling their responsibilities and obligations. They also argue that polygyny is incompatible with the modern values of democracy, human rights, and gender equality.

Therefore, the statement that Muslim law entitles husbands to polygamy, but he has to treat all wives equally, is not a simple or universal fact but a contested and nuanced issue that depends on the interpretation and application of the sources of Islamic law, the historical and cultural context, and the personal views and experiences of the individuals involved.

A Bench of Justices RMT Teeka Raman and PB Balaji upheld the decision of a family court in Tirunelveli which had passed an order of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

The Bench noted that the husband and his family members initially tortured and harassed his first wife. He later performed a second marriage with another woman and has been living with her since.

“…he (husband) has not treated the first wife and the second wife equally as required under the provisions of the Islamic law. Under the Islamic law the husband is entitled to polygamous marriage however, he has to treat all the wives equally,” the judgment stated.

As per the first wife’s version, she was harassed by her husband and his mother and his sister. She stated that while she was pregnant, her husband and in-laws didn’t take proper care of her and even subjected her to cruelty by giving her food she was allergic to. She claimed that the mother-in-law scolded her for not properly draping a saree while she was pregnant. She further stated that after she had a miscarriage, her sister-in-law harassed her for not being able to bear a child.

Further, the wife claimed that her husband kept comparing her with some relatives and even disliked the food she prepared for him. When the torture and harassment became intolerable, the wife left the matrimonial house. The husband demanded her return, failing which he would marry a second time. The first wife claimed that her husband has been living happily with the second wife.  

The husband denied all the allegations. 

However, after going through the material on record, the Court noted that the wife successfully demonstrated that her husband had treated her unequally with his second wife and did not take her proper care of her. The Bench held that the husband even failed to perform his marital obligations towards the first wife.

“As a husband, he is duty bound to maintain the wife even while she was with her parents. If at all he is aggrieved by her separation, then he should have taken measures for reunion and if it failed then on reasonable grounds he could pronounce Talaq. But in the instant case, no such act was done by the husband and in fact he did not maintain the first wife and failed in his duty and has married another woman.”  

All these circumstances, the Bench said, prove that the husband meted out several cruelties to his first wife, as a result of which she returned to her parental home.

“Hence, we are of the view that the husband having not treated the first wife and the second wife equally, and the first wife clearly demonstrated the cruelties met out to her by the husband and that he failed to maintain her for two years. We therefore, are of the view that the findings of the Family Court that the husband treated the wife with cruelty and has not treated her on par and equally with the second wife and accordingly granted dissolution of marriage, is well merited and does not warrant interference,” the judgment stated.

With these observations, the Bench dismissed the husband’s appeal.