Introduction
The Jharkhand High Court recently delivered a significant ruling that a Muslim husband cannot rely on Muslim personal law to claim restitution of conjugal rights when the marriage was solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Court clarified that once parties choose to marry under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), all rights, remedies, and obligations must arise from that statute alone. Religious or personal laws have no role in deciding such disputes, especially when the couple has opted for a secular legal framework.
Facts of the Case
The case concerned Md. Akil Alam and Tumpa Chakravarty, who married on 4 August 2015 under the Special Marriage Act in Dhanbad. After two months, the wife left the matrimonial home on 10 October 2015, which the husband claimed was without reasonable cause. Alam filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the SMA, asserting that he was ready to support his wife and wished to resume their marital relationship.
The wife contested the petition by stating that the husband had concealed his first marriage and a child born from that marriage, which she viewed as cruelty. She also highlighted that she had already obtained a maintenance order in separate proceedings. The Family Court dismissed Alam’s petition after concluding that he had suppressed crucial information about his existing marriage when entering into the second one. Alam then appealed this dismissal before the Jharkhand High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, arguing that as a Muslim man, he was permitted to have more than one wife.
What the Court Says
The High Court held that the Special Marriage Act governs marriages solemnised under it, and therefore personal laws cannot be invoked to justify any rights within such marriages. The Court rejected Alam’s argument that Muslim personal law allowed him to have four wives because the couple had clearly chosen the secular route of marriage under the SMA.
It emphasised that the husband’s concealment of his first marriage and child went to the root of the matter and undermined the legitimacy of his claim. The judges explained that restitution of conjugal rights is both a statutory right and an inherent aspect of marriage, but courts must examine the remedy strictly within the framework of the SMA. Under Section 22, the court may direct the resumption of cohabitation only if one spouse has withdrawn from the relationship without reasonable cause. In this case, the wife had strong grounds for withdrawal based on the husband’s concealment of material facts. The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, finding that the husband’s conduct did not entitle him to the relief he sought.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Implications of the Decision
This ruling strengthens the authority of the Special Marriage Act as a secular and uniform legal framework that applies equally to all individuals who choose to marry under it, regardless of their personal or religious backgrounds. It confirms that personal law cannot override the provisions of the SMA and that polygamy permitted under certain personal laws cannot be used as a defence in disputes arising from a marriage registered under this Act.
The judgment also highlights the necessity of full transparency at the time of marriage and underscores that concealment of an existing marriage or children damages trust and affects legal rights. It offers important protection for spouses, especially women, who may withdraw from cohabitation due to deception or coercion. The decision also provides clarity for courts and legal practitioners by reaffirming that disputes under SMA must be handled strictly within its statutory boundaries. Overall, the ruling promotes honesty, equality, and legal certainty within marriages solemnised under the Special Marriage Act.
