No Polygamy Under Special Marriage Act: Muslim Man Cannot Invoke Personal Law to Justify Bigamy – Jharkhand High Court Upholds Wife’s Right to Live Separately

“A Husband Who Conceals a Living Spouse Cannot Demand Restitution of Conjugal Rights; Law Does Not Protect the Wrongdoer” –  In a landmark decision delivered Jharkhand High Court emphatically held that a marriage solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is not governed by personal law, and a Muslim man cannot rely on Mohammadan Law to justify a second marriage while the first is subsisting. The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar dismissed the husband’s first appeal challenging the rejection of his suit for restitution of conjugal rights, observing that the wife had just and reasonable cause to withdraw from the marriage due to concealment, coercion, and apprehension for her safety.

“Special Marriage Act Overrides Personal Law: Living Spouse Bars Remarriage, Even for Muslims”

Rejecting the appellant’s principal defence that Mohammadan Law permits polygamy, the Court made it clear that marriages solemnized under the Special Marriage Act are governed exclusively by its provisions.

Referring to Section 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act, the Court held: “When a person solemnizes marriage under this law (Act 1954), then the marriage is not governed by personal laws but by the Special Marriage Act. The rights and duties arising out of marriage are governed by the Special Marriage Act and not by personal laws.” [Para 47]

The Court further emphasised: “The contention of the learned counsel that being a Muslim his marriage life will be governed by personal laws even though he had solemnized his marriage under the Special Marriage Act, is not tenable.” [Para 48]

The appellant’s argument, which attempted to import a personal law exception into a secular statutory marriage, was squarely rejected on the basis of both statutory interpretation and precedent. The Court cited Anwar Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1989 All LJ 303, where the Allahabad High Court ruled that a Muslim man marrying under the Special Marriage Act is subject to its monogamy requirement, and personal law cannot be used as a shield for bigamy.

“Wife’s Withdrawal from Matrimonial Home Was Justified: Fear for Life and Deceit by Husband Are Sufficient Grounds”

The case arose from a suit filed by the husband under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that the wife had left him without cause shortly after their marriage in 2015. The wife responded by asserting that the husband had concealed a prior marriage and children, had pressured her to transfer family property, and had created a situation where she feared for her safety.

Referring to her testimony and that of her mother, the Court noted: “It has come in the testimony of R.W.2 that the petitioner husband has already married another girl and has children from his previous wife. She further deposed that there is danger of her life from the petitioner and his first wife, making it impossible for her to live in Dhanbad.” [Para 50]

The Court held that these facts, established through oral and documentary evidence, especially the maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC, demonstrated that the wife had withdrawn with just cause.

“The respondent has sufficient ground to live separate from the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.” [Para 51]

The Court invoked the well-settled principle that equity does not aid those who come with unclean hands and noted that Section 22’s remedy cannot be granted where the petitioner himself is at fault.

“Restitution of Conjugal Rights Is Not Automatic; It Requires Clean Hands and Just Conduct”

In a detailed analysis of Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, the Court reiterated that the burden of proving a reasonable excuse for withdrawal lies on the party who has withdrawn, as per the statutory explanation. However, once such cause is established—as was done in this case—the petition for restitution must fail.

The Court observed: “Conjugal rights are not a one-way street. They are founded on mutual respect, trust, and legality. A husband who enters marriage by deceit and exposes his wife to threats cannot invoke the Court’s equitable jurisdiction to compel cohabitation.” [Paras 30–34]

Quoting from the Family Court’s judgment, the High Court underlined a crucial finding: “Keeping of a mistress or contracting a second marriage by a husband is a sufficient ground for a wife to deny from accompanying with her husband.” [Para 51]

The High Court endorsed this view and noted that even the appellant had previously attempted to disown the marriage during the maintenance proceedings, arguing it was “irregular”.

“No Perversity in Trial Court’s Findings; Evidence Was Properly Appreciated”

The appellant argued that the Family Court’s findings were perverse, alleging that the court had failed to appreciate the evidence correctly. However, the High Court found no merit in this contention, holding that the trial court had carefully weighed all depositions, including those of three witnesses produced by the husband and two by the wife.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “perverse findings” in Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206, the Court stated:

“A perverse judgment is one that ignores material evidence or defies logic. That is not the case here. The Family Court made detailed and logical findings based on the evidence presented by both sides.” [Para 57]

The Court concluded: “The appellant has failed to establish the element of perversity in the impugned judgment. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.” [Para 58]

In rejecting the appeal and upholding the Family Court’s judgment, the Jharkhand High Court affirmed that:

“The respondent has not deserted the petitioner without any just cause rather she has a valid cause for living separate from the petitioner.” [Para 51]

The Court clarified that marriages under the Special Marriage Act are governed by statutory provisions alone, and personal laws have no application, even where both parties belong to a religion that permits otherwise. It also reaffirmed the judicial principle that marital remedies like restitution are not available to a party in breach of legal and ethical obligations.

Date of Decision: 06 October 2025