In a case that tugs at the heartstrings, the Kerala High Court on Monday delivered a judgment with profound social implications. While confirming that a blind beggar cannot be legally compelled to pay maintenance to his wife, the court went far beyond the case's immediate facts, calling on the state government to intervene and counsel the man against taking a third wife and to protect his existing destitute spouses.
Background
The strange legal battle began when a woman approached the Family Court in Malappuram, seeking maintenance from her husband, 'Saidalavi'. In her petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she made a startling claim: her husband, who is blind, earns around ₹25,000 a month, partly from begging outside a mosque on Fridays and partly from helping others pay their utility bills. She demanded ₹10,000 per month from his alms.
The husband admitted he was blind and survived on what he received from begging and the kindness of his neighbours. The Family Court, taking a straightforward view, dismissed the wife's plea, reasoning that you can't order a beggar to pay maintenance. Aggrieved, the wife, who is the man's second wife, brought the matter before the High Court.
Court's Observations
Presiding over the bench, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan began by agreeing with the lower court's decision. However, it quickly became clear this wasn't going to be a simple legal confirmation.
"Courts are not Robots. Human beings sit in courts as judges," the judge observed, indicating the court could not turn a blind eye to the distressing human elements of the case.
The court noted with concern that the respondent, despite being a blind beggar, already had a first wife who was still alive and was now threatening to divorce his second wife (the petitioner) to marry for a third time. Justice Kunhikrishnan sharply criticised this, stating,
"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 judge then addressed what he termed a "misconception" that Muslim men can marry multiple times without condition. Quoting verses from the Holy Quran, the court explained that the spirit of the scripture is monogamy, and polygamy is only an exception permitted under the strict condition that a man can do absolute justice to all his wives—a condition the respondent clearly could not meet.
Delving into the state's responsibility, the court passionately argued that it is the government's duty to ensure no citizen is forced to beg for a livelihood. The bench noted,
"The State has a duty to see that if a blind man is begging for his livelihood, he is protected".
This duty, the court explained, extends to counselling men like the respondent and protecting the destitute wives who become victims of irresponsible polygamy.
Decision
In its final order, the High Court upheld the Family Court's decision to deny maintenance, confirming the initial order from Malappuram.
However, in a significant and unusual directive, the court ordered its Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department, Government of Kerala.
The court directed the department to take "appropriate action," which includes providing counselling to the husband with the help of religious leaders to prevent another marriage and to ensure that his current wives are provided with basic necessities like food and clothing.