No Valid ‘Nikah’ Without Halala Compliance: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Maintenance Order Amid Dispute Over Muslim Woman’s Remarriage With Former Husband

“In Absence of Legal Dissolution of Intervening Marriage, Remarriage With First Husband Is Void” —  Kerala High Court (Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath) held that a Muslim woman who fails to establish lawful dissolution of her intervening marriage cannot claim legal spousal status upon remarriage with her first husband. The Court held that such remarriage is void under Islamic law and consequently, does not confer a right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Allowing the revision petition filed by the husband, V.P. Abdurahiman, and setting aside the Family Court’s maintenance order, the High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing that both parties be allowed to adduce further evidence, particularly on the dissolution of the woman’s second marriage with one Mr. Moideenkoya.

“Doctrine of Halala Is Not a Ritual Form But a Substantive Legal Requirement” – High Court Emphasises Halala Preconditions for Valid Remarriage Under Muslim Law

In a judgment that incisively examines the intersection of Muslim personal law and Section 125 CrPC, the Kerala High Court ruled that unless a divorced Muslim woman conclusively proves the lawful termination of her intervening marriage, any alleged remarriage with her first husband is void and not legally recognisable. The Court noted that the doctrine of Nikah Halala is not a formality but a substantive legal safeguard against misuse of the talaq-remarriage route, requiring evidence of consummation and valid dissolution of the intervening marriage.

The case arose from a maintenance petition filed by C. Safiya, who claimed to have remarried her first husband Abdurahiman in 2012 after earlier divorcing him in 1986. However, the husband denied the remarriage and disputed the legality of such union, highlighting the respondent’s failure to prove the dissolution of her intervening marriage with another man, Mr. Moideenkoya.

The parties, both Muslims, were originally married in 1983 and had one daughter. That marriage ended with a talaq pronounced by the husband in 1986. The next day, the husband married another woman, and the respondent, Safiya, also entered into a second marriage with Mr. Moideenkoya in 1991.

While Safiya later claimed she divorced Moideenkoya within a year, the Family Court at Malappuram granted her maintenance of ₹6,000 per month, accepting her claim that she had remarried Abdurahiman in 2012. Challenging this order, the husband approached the High Court, arguing that the alleged remarriage was void, as the respondent had neither proved the dissolution of her intervening marriage nor the essential elements of a valid Nikah.

At the heart of the case was the doctrine of Halala, a principle under Muslim personal law which mandates that a divorced woman cannot remarry her first husband unless she marries and lawfully divorces another man. The Court meticulously laid down the jurisprudence on this point:

“The second marriage must have actually occurred, consummated, and then legally dissolved. Without this, the woman remains disqualified from remarrying the first husband.”

Justice Edappagath noted that while the existence of an intervening marriage with Moideenkoya was admitted, the respondent failed to establish its lawful termination:

“There is no evidence that talaq was pronounced in the presence of the respondent or that any intimation was given to the mosque... vague statements are not enough.”

The Court further observed that neither the respondent nor her witnesses could confirm the date, method, or mode of the alleged divorce from Moideenkoya, and added:

“A woman whose marriage to a living man subsists under Muslim Law cannot remarry another. Such second marriage will be batil (void).”

Invalid Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status Under Section 125 CrPC

Addressing the presumption of marriage arising from long cohabitation, the Court clarified that such presumption is rebuttable and cannot override a legal impediment to marriage, such as an existing undissolved marriage.

“For the presumption of valid marriage to arise, there must be no insurmountable obstacle such as a subsisting marriage. In this case, the respondent remained disqualified from marrying the petitioner.”

Justice Edappagath cited key rulings including:

• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530

• Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636

• Vimala v. Veeraswamy, (1991) 2 SCC 375

and held that a woman whose marriage is void due to subsisting marital ties cannot be treated as a 'wife' for the purpose of Section 125 CrPC.

Lack of Proof of Second Nikah Also Fatal to Respondent’s Case

In addition to the issue of halala, the Court also found no sufficient evidence to establish the second Nikah (remarriage) with the petitioner in 2012. The respondent relied on her own testimony and that of her brother and daughter. However, none of the essential witnesses to the Nikah were examined, and the mosque register or marriage certificate was not produced.

“In the absence of evidence of the witnesses and the Khatib who performed the Nikah, it cannot be said that the marriage has been satisfactorily proved.”

Thus, even if the halala barrier had been removed, the remarriage still failed on evidentiary grounds.

Fresh Opportunity to Prove Marital Status

While setting aside the impugned order, the Court granted the respondent one final opportunity to establish her claims with proper evidence:

“Considering the impact of the finding on the status of the respondent as wife... an opportunity has to be given to adduce further evidence.”

The Court accordingly remanded the matter to the Family Court, Malappuram, directing it to decide the case afresh within three months after giving both parties opportunity to present additional evidence.

This decision of the Kerala High Court underscores that Muslim personal law requirements such as Halala are not mere ritualistic barriers, but have binding legal consequences, particularly when claims of spousal status and maintenance under Section 125 CrPC are raised. The judgment harmonizes religious personal law with statutory provisions, reiterating that a woman can claim maintenance only if she holds valid legal status as ‘wife’, which must be established through clear, cogent, and admissible evidence.

The Court’s balanced approach—of not denying justice but demanding legal proof—sets an important precedent in cases involving religious customs, remarriage, and maintenance rights under secular statutes.

Date of Decision: 5 December 2025