Kerala HC says polygamy out of bounds for Muslim men lacking means
_vb_08_vb_19.gif)
Kochi (PTI): The Kerala High Court has observed that it cannot accept multiple marriages of a Muslim man when he has no capacity to maintain his wives, and one of them approaches the court claiming maintenance.
The observation was made by Justice P V Kunhikrishnan when a 39-year-old Perinthalmanna native approached the court seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 from her husband, who survives by begging.
Earlier, the petitioner had approached a Family Court, which dismissed her plea, stating that her 46-year-old husband from Kumbadi, Palakkad, who was surviving on begging, cannot be directed to pay maintenance.
The court, in a satirical manner, referred to a Malayalam phrase implying: "Don’t put your hand into a begging bowl".
The judge noted that the husband was also not a saint. "Even though he is blind and a beggar, as stated by the petitioner, who is his second wife, he has been threatening her that he will soon enter into a third marriage with another woman," the court observed.
The court perused the petition and found that the respondent was receiving an income of Rs 25,000 from various sources, including begging, and that the petitioner had sought Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance. The respondent currently lives with his first wife.
The court also noted that it could not digest the contention of the wife that her blind husband regularly assaulted her.
However, while highlighting the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court said that judges are not robots. "Admittedly, the respondent belongs to the Muslim community, and he is taking the benefits of his customary law, which, according to him, allows him to marry twice or thrice. A person who has no capacity to maintain a second or third wife cannot marry again, even as per the customary law of Muslims," the court observed.
The court further said that successive marriages of the man, when he was only a beggar, cannot be accepted even under Muslim customary law. "These types of marriages happen in the Muslim community because of the lack of education, lack of knowledge of the customary law of Muslims. A court of law cannot simply recognise the first, second or third marriage of a Muslim man when he has no capacity to maintain his wives and one of the wives approached the court with a petition claiming maintenance," it noted.
Referring to verses of the Quran, it said the holy text propagates monogamy and treats polygamy as only an exception. "If a Muslim man can give justice to his first wife, second wife, third wife and fourth wife, then only marriage more than once is permissible," the court said.
According to the court, a majority of Muslims follow monogamy, which reflects the true spirit of the Quran, while only a small minority practise polygamy, forgetting its verses. They must be educated by religious leaders and society, it said.
Taking up the respondent’s situation, the court said begging cannot be recognised as a livelihood and that it is the duty of the state, society, and judiciary to ensure that no one resorts to it. It stressed that the state must provide food and clothing to such persons.
The court also referred to Sree Narayana Guru’s Daivadasakam, a collection of ten verses on God.
"If a blind man who is begging in front of the mosque and marrying one after another without even knowledge of the fundamental principles of Muslim customary law, he should be counselled appropriately. It is the duty of the state to protect the destitute wives who are victims of polygamy in the Muslim community," the judge said.
The court directed that a copy of its order be given to the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department for appropriate action. "The department should provide counselling to the respondent, assisted by the competent counsellors, including religious leaders," it ordered.
Regarding the plea for maintenance, the court reiterated the Family Court’s earlier stance. "I am of the considered opinion that this court cannot direct a beggar to pay maintenance to his wife. However, the government should ensure that the petitioners' wives are also provided with food and clothing," he court ordered.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
