Kerala High Court, in a landmark pronouncement delivered by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishna, held that a Muslim man’s second marriage cannot be registered under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 unless the first wife is given an opportunity of hearing.
While Muslim personal law permits polygamy in limited circumstances, the Court clarified that registration of a second marriage—a civil, statutory act governed by secular law—must adhere to the principles of natural justice, constitutional equality, and gender fairness.
This decision significantly strengthens women’s procedural rights in matrimonial matters and balances the intersection between personal law and constitutional mandates.
Background of the Case
The petitioners were Muhammad Shareef C, a 44-year-old resident of Kannur, and his alleged second wife, Abida T. C. from Kasaragod. Shareef was already married and had two children from his first marriage. During that subsisting marriage, he developed a relationship with Abida, who was herself divorced from her previous husband. They claimed to have solemnised their marriage on 17 August 2017 according to Muslim religious customs.
Two children were born from this union, and the couple sought registration of their marriage before the local self-government institution (the Thrikaripur Grama Panchayat). However, the Panchayat Secretary refused to register the marriage, citing the existence of the first marriage. Aggrieved, the couple approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus directing registration.
Issues
Justice Kunhikrishnan framed two essential questions:
- Is notice to the first wife necessary before registering a Muslim man’s second marriage under the 2008 Rules?
- If the first wife objects to registration, alleging the second marriage is invalid, what is the remedy available to the husband?
The resolution of these questions required harmonising personal law, statutory rules, and constitutional values.
Petitioners’ Contention
The petitioners argued that:
- Under Muslim personal law, a man is entitled to marry up to four wives at a time, provided he treats them equally and can maintain them.
- The Registrar of Marriages has no authority to inquire into the validity of a marriage; registration is a mere record of an already solemnised union.
- The Panchayat’s refusal to register the marriage was, therefore, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the couple’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
- They sought a direction to compel registration under Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008.
The Court’s Analysis
A. Scope of Registration Under the 2008 Rules
The Court first examined Rule 11, which governs the filing of memoranda and verification by the Local Registrar. It was observed that although the Registrar’s inquiry is summary and he cannot decide on the validity of a marriage, he must verify entries for accuracy and completeness.
Form I appended to the Rules requires the applicant to disclose:
- Previous marital status, and
- Whether any spouse is living.
Hence, the Registrar can easily ascertain whether a party to the marriage has an existing spouse. The Court stressed that registration is not automatic; the Registrar must ensure compliance with procedural requirements.
B. Nature of Polygamy Under Muslim Law
Referring to the decision in Jubairiya v. Saidalavi N. [2025 (6) KHC 224], the Court clarified the spirit of the Qur’an on polygamy:
“There is a misconception that a Muslim man can marry more than one woman in all situations if he wishes to do so. The spirit and intention of these verses is monogamy, and polygamy is only an exception.”
Justice Kunhikrishnan cited verses 3 and 129 of Surah An-Nisa (Chapter 4 of the Qur’an), highlighting that justice among wives is a strict condition, and even the Qur’an acknowledges the near impossibility of perfect equality.
He observed that the majority of Muslims practise monogamy, which aligns with the essence of Islamic teaching.
C. Constitutional Mandate and Gender Equality
While acknowledging that personal law allows a second marriage in specific circumstances, the Court underscored that constitutional rights supersede religious customs when a civil act—such as registration—is involved.
Justice Kunhikrishnan held that gender equality is a fundamental human and constitutional value. Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex or religion.
Therefore, when a Muslim man seeks to register his second marriage, the first wife cannot be a silent spectator.
The Court eloquently stated:
“A Muslim first wife cannot be a silent spectator to the registration of the second marriage of her husband, even though the Muslim Personal Law allows a second marriage to a man in certain situations.”
D. Personal Law v. Civil Registration
The judgment distinguishes religious solemnisation and civil registration:
- Solemnisation of marriage may occur under religious personal law.
- Registration, however, is governed by secular legislation—the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008—which is binding on all citizens regardless of faith.
Hence, even if personal law permits a second marriage, civil authorities cannot register it without satisfying procedural fairness and respecting constitutional principles.
E. Principle of Natural Justice
The Court grounded its conclusion in the audi alteram partem rule—“hear the other side.”
Since registration affects the legal status of the first wife and potentially her children’s inheritance and maintenance rights, she must be notified and heard before the Registrar proceeds.
This procedural safeguard, the Court said, is essential to uphold fairness, transparency, and equality in marital dealings.
Reference to Earlier Precedents
- Seema v. Ashwani Kumar [2006 (1) KLT 791 (SC)]: The Supreme Court directed all states to ensure compulsory registration of marriages to protect women’s rights. The Kerala Rules 2008 were framed pursuant to this direction.
- Hussain v. State of Kerala [2025 (4) KHC 314]: Held that the Registrar’s inquiry is summary; he cannot decide the marriage’s validity but may reject incomplete applications.
- Jubairiya v. Saidalavi N. [2025 (6) KHC 224]: Clarified that polygamy is not unrestricted and that Islam emphasises justice and equality among spouses.
By synthesising these precedents, the Court reinforced that while personal law permits certain religious practices, civil law must operate within constitutional boundaries.
The Court’s Directions
Justice Kunhikrishnan concluded:
If a Muslim man seeks to register a second marriage while the first marriage subsists, the Registrar must issue notice to the first wife and afford her an opportunity of hearing.
If the first wife objects, asserting that the second marriage is invalid, the Registrar must not register it. Instead, the parties should be directed to approach a competent civil court to determine validity under their personal law.
Notice need not be given only when the first marriage has already been dissolved, whether by talaq or any other lawful means.
The Court also declined to grant relief to the petitioners because the first wife was not a party to the writ petition, dismissing it but clarifying that they may file a fresh application in compliance with the above procedure.
Conclusion
Kerala High Court’s judgment in Muhammad Shareef C & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. is a milestone in Indian matrimonial jurisprudence. It clarifies that personal law cannot override constitutional guarantees when a marriage seeks civil recognition through registration.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan’s reasoning transforms registration from a mechanical process into a forum of fairness, ensuring that a woman’s voice is not silenced in matters that profoundly affect her life.
In essence, the ruling conveys a powerful message:
“Religion is secondary; constitutional rights are supreme.”
By mandating notice to the first wife, the Court upholds not only natural justice but also the dignity and equality of women, reaffirming that in a constitutional democracy, no spouse can be rendered invisible under the shadow of personal law.
Important Link