Maharashtra man marries twins. What do Hindu and Muslim marriage laws say?

A Maharashtra man married twins in a ceremony. A Bihar man wed six women across four states. While nuptials of the former went viral on social media and the latter married in secret before being busted by his brother-in-law, both have one thing in common – complaints have been lodged against both men. Let’s take a look at what the laws say on bigamy: Bigamy in India is illegal under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises remarriage during lifetime of husband or wife. Atul Uttam Autade, the man who married the twin Rinky and Pinky Padgaonkar, was booked under this section.

In the absence of a Uniform Civil Code, different religions have different laws in India.

Hindus have the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act, Muslims have the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937, Christians the Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872, and Parsis have the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936. Those unaffiliated with these religions can marry under the Special Marriage Act of 1954. As per News18, the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 applies to those who observe Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Section 5 of the Act directs that there ought to be no living spouse living at the time of marriage and that bride and groom must be of sound mind, and give their consent freely. Indian Kanoon quotes Section 17 of the Act as saying, “Any marriage between two Hindus solemnised after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), shall apply accordingly." Indian courts have backed up the Hindu laws. The Karnataka and Gauhati high courts in June said there can be no bigamy in Hinduism, as per Indiatimes. [caption id=“attachment_11756531” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] File image of Karnataka High Court. WikimediaCommons
File image of Karnataka High Court. WikimediaCommons[/caption] The Gauhati court made the observation in a family pension dispute between two women, while the Karnataka high court ruled that bigamy is an offence and consent given by a wife or wives is immaterial. The Gauhati High Court noted that both parties are Hindu by religion and as per the Hindu Marriage Act there is no concept of bigamy rather the same is an offence under the Indian Penal Code and also a ground for divorce. The Karnataka court, quashing a defendant’s plea to dismiss a case against him, said his admission of bigamy makes it a ‘continuing offence.’

It is also important to draw a distinction between bigamy and polygamy.

Bigamy refers to marrying one person while being legally married to another person, while polygamy is when one person has more than one wife or husband at the same time. Muslim law In India, polygamy is outlawed for all except Muslim men and some tribals. According to the Muslim marriage laws in India, a man can have up to four wives, but a woman can only have one husband at a time. Section 2[7] of Shariat Act allows the application of polygamy among Muslims. According to Legal Services India, under Muslim law polygamy is neither mandatory nor encouraged, but merely permitted. Speaking to BBC, former chief election commissioner SY Qureshi, said “the perception is that every other Muslim has four wives” is simply not accurate. Qureshi, who has studied polygamy says in India, told BBC the sanction for polygamy, which comes from the Quran, is allowed only under “strict conditions and restrictions” that are nearly impossible to fulfil. “The Quran says that a man can take a second or a third or a fourth wife but only from among orphans and widows and that he must treat them all equally. Anything else is a violation. But loving equally is almost impossible in practice. It’s not just about buying them same clothes, it is much more than that,” Qureshi added.

Women’s rights activists have also decried the practice.

More from Explainers

Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar Giorgio Armani will: Who will get the inheritance? What happens to his fashion empire?

Zakia Soman, founder of the Mumbai-based Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA - Indian Muslim Women’s Movement), told the BBC polygamy is “abhorrent - morally, socially and legally” and the fact that “it’s legally allowed makes it problematic”. “How can you say that one man can have more than one wife? The community has to move ahead with the times. In today’s day and age, it’s a gross violation of a woman’s dignity and human rights.” [caption id=“attachment_10251911” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Representational image. News18[/caption] Soman said a 2017 survey of 289 women in such relationships showed they were “… trapped in situations that were hugely unjust and for all of them, it had been a traumatic experience and many had developed mental health issues." SC to examine polygamy, nikah-halala The Supreme Court in November agreed to form a constitution bench to conduct proceedings on pleas related to polygamy and nikah-halala practised among Muslims. The practice of nikah-halala requires a divorced woman to marry someone else, consummate the marriage and then get a divorce in order to again marry her first husband under Muslim personal law. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that it will form a new bench to deal with the issues. The court direction came after advocate Ashwini Upadhyay mentioned the pleas seeking to ban nikah-halala and polygamy. Advocate Upadhyay informed the court that two judges Justices Indira Banerjee and Justice Hemant Gupta have retired and a new bench has to be formed.

“We will form a bench,” the CJI responded.

On 30 August, a five-judge bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M M Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia had made the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), National Commission for Women (NCW) and the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) parties to the PILs and sought their responses. Later, Justice Banerjee and Justice Gupta retired on 23 September and 16 October respectively giving rise to the need for re-constitution of the bench to hear as many as eight petitions against the practices of polygamy and ‘nikah halala’. Upadhyay, in his PIL, has sought a direction to declare polygamy and ‘nikah halala’ unconstitutional and illegal. The apex court had in July 2018 considered the plea and referred the matter to a Constitution bench already tasked with hearing a batch of similar petitions. The apex court had issued notice to the Centre on the petition filed by a woman named Farjana and tagged Upadhyay’s plea to a batch of petitions to be heard by the Constitution bench. The lawyer’s petition sought declaring extrajudicial talaq a cruelty under Section 498A (husband or his relatives subjecting a woman to cruelty) of of the IPC. It claimed nikah halala is an offence under Section 375 (rape) of the IPC, and polygamy a crime under Section 494 (Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife) of the IPC, 1860. The apex court, which on August 22, 2017 banned the age-old practice of instant ‘triple talaq’ among Sunni Muslims, had on March 26, 2018 decided to refer to a larger bench a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of polygamy and ‘nikah halala’. The pleas were referred to a larger bench by the Supreme Court after an earlier five-judge constitution bench in its 2017 verdict kept open the issue of polygamy and ‘nikah halala’ while quashing the practice of ‘triple talaq’. It had also issued notices to the Law and Justice Ministry, the Minority Affairs Ministry and the National Commission of Women (NCW) at that time. Some petitions have also challenged the practices of ‘Nikah Mutah’ and ‘Nikah Misyar’ — two types of temporary marriages where duration of the relationship is specified and agreed upon in advance. [caption id=“attachment_10319171” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] File image of Supreme Court in New Delhi. PTI[/caption] In one of the petitions, a woman named Sameena Begum has said by virtue of the Muslim Personal Law, Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (punishment for marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife) was rendered inapplicable to Muslims and no married woman from the community has the avenue of filing a complaint against her husband for the offence of bigamy. Another plea was filed by Rani alias Shabnam who alleged that she and her three minor children were thrown out of the matrimonial home after her husband remarried. She has sought the practices of polygamy and ‘nikah halala’ to be declared unconstitutional. A similar plea was filed by Delhi-based Nafisa Khan seeking almost the same reliefs. She has sought declaring the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) of the Constitution in so far as it fails to secure for Indian Muslim women protection from bigamy which has been statutorily secured for women in India belonging to other religions. SC ruling against polygamy for govt employee The Supreme Court in 2015 ruled that a government employee cannot take refuge under Article 25 of the Constitution dealing with right to profess religion to challenge a rule barring polygamy. The apex court said the Conduct Rules of the Uttar Pradesh government for its employees, which mandates prior permission for contracting second marriage during the existence of the first marriage, is not violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. The court was dealing with an appeal filed by a Muslim employee in UP’s Irrigation Department challenging a disciplinary authority order removing him from service for proven misconduct of another marriage during the existence of the first marriage, which was upheld by Allahabad High Court. Holding that there was no need to interfere with the High Court’s finding on “proven misconduct”, a bench comprising justices T S Thakur and Adarsh Kumar Goel said his contention that such rule was violative of Article 25 was answered by the apex court in Javed vs State of Haryana matter. In this case, it was held that what was protected under Article 25 was religious faith and not a practice which may run counter to public order, health or morality. “Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25. This Court upheld the views of the Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts to this effect. In its judgment, the bench said, “as regards the charge of misconduct in question, it is patent that there is no material on record to show that the appellant divorced his first wife before the second marriage or he informed the Government about contracting the second marriage. “In absence thereof, the second marriage is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules,” the bench had said. With inputs from agencies Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News ,  India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook,  Twitter and  Instagram.