The spirit of Quranic injunctions favours monogamy; polygamy is only an exception permissible when the husband can ensure equal justice and maintenance to all wives. Successive marriages by a destitute blind beggar “cannot be accepted at all, even as per Muslim customary law.”
Headnote:
Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – Claim against husband who is a blind beggar – Whether court can direct maintenance – Held: No. A beggar cannot be ordered to pay maintenance when it is admitted that he has no income other than alms. Court emphasised State’s duty to protect destitute women and prevent begging. Observations made on polygamy under Muslim law, holding that successive marriages without the capacity to maintain wives are contrary to the true spirit of the Quran. Directions issued to Social Welfare Department for counselling and welfare measures.
Case Title:
Jubairiya v. Saidalavi N.
Kerala High Court, RPFC No. 221 of 2021
Decided on: 15 September 2025
Coram: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Facts:
The petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking ₹10,000 per month as maintenance from her husband.
The respondent-husband, who is blind, survived mainly by begging in front of a mosque and with occasional help from neighbours.
He had married the petitioner as his second wife, while his first wife was alive. He allegedly threatened to take a third wife.
The Family Court, Malappuram, dismissed the maintenance claim, holding that a beggar cannot be ordered to pay maintenance.
The wife challenged this order before the High Court.
Issues:
Whether a court can direct a beggar to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
Whether successive marriages by a person without financial capacity are valid under Muslim personal law?
What is the role of the State when destitute persons are involved in such disputes?
Decision:
The High Court confirmed the Family Court’s order: no maintenance can be ordered from a beggar.
The Court held that the spirit of Quranic injunctions favours monogamy; polygamy is only an exception permissible when the husband can ensure equal justice and maintenance to all wives.
Observed that successive marriages by a destitute blind beggar “cannot be accepted at all, even as per Muslim customary law.”
Directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, State of Kerala, to:
Provide counselling to the respondent with the assistance of religious leaders.
Ensure that the wives of the respondent are provided food and clothing.
Take steps to prevent further destitution arising from irresponsible polygamous marriages.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 125 CrPC presupposes that the person from whom maintenance is sought has means to maintain. When it is admitted that the respondent is a beggar, no maintenance can be directed.
Muslim law does not sanction unlimited polygamy; capacity to do justice and maintain wives is a precondition.
The State has a constitutional duty to protect the poor and prevent begging; courts may call upon welfare departments when such situations come to light.
Significance:
This judgment goes beyond a narrow reading of Section 125 CrPC. It raises critical issues about poverty, gender justice, and misuse of personal law. While refusing relief to the petitioner directly, the Court sought to protect her and similarly placed women through State intervention.
Case Law & References:
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 – Maintenance is a right of the wife to ensure dignity and survival.
Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 – “Means” under Section 125 CrPC does not only mean visible income; includes potential earning capacity.
Shamim Ara v. State of U.P., (2002) 7 SCC 518 – On talaq and protection of Muslim wives.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556 – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC applicable irrespective of religion.
Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P., (2015) 8 SCC 439 – Recognition that polygamy is not an integral part of Islam.
Quran, Surah An-Nisa (4:3, 4:129) – permitting multiple marriages only on condition of justice.
Download pdf copy of the judgement in Jubairiya v. Saidalavi N. 212600002212021_1