The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that once a marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act, personal laws like Muslim law can’t justify a second marriage. The court dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking conjugal rights, calling his concealed first marriage illegal.
RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court, in a major ruling on October 6, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by Md. Akil Alam, a pathologist from Dhanbad, who claimed that his personal law as a Muslim allowed him to have multiple wives.
Alam had filed the appeal after the Family Court, Deoghar, refused his plea for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The High Court made it clear that “once a marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act, personal law cannot override it”, and any concealment of an existing marriage makes such a union legally invalid.
Alam, aged 31, had solemnised his second marriage on August 4, 2015, under the Special Marriage Act in Dhanbad. He alleged that after a brief stay together at Amarpur, his wife Tumpa Chakravarty left for her parental home in Deoghar on October 10, 2015, and never returned.
Accusing her of “withdrawal from his society without reasonable cause,” he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, claiming he was “ready and willing to maintain her with dignity.”
However, the wife opposed the plea, calling it “misconceived and unwarranted.” She accused Alam of hiding his subsisting marriage and having two daughters from his first wife. She also alleged that Alam tried to pressure her father to transfer property to his name and treated her with cruelty when the demand was refused.
She had already filed a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC in 2018, which was allowed on December 5, 2019, directing Alam to pay her ₹8,000 per month. She also complained that he failed to make regular payments and that she faced “threats to her life from him and his first wife.”
After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court dismissed Alam’s petition on November 28, 2023, finding that he had a living spouse at the time of his second marriage and had hidden this crucial fact. During cross-examination, Alam admitted that he had two daughters from his first marriage, and his own witnesses confirmed this.
The Family Court also pointed out contradictions in Alam’s statements. Although he claimed his second wife knew about his first marriage, he also admitted that he did not disclose it before the Marriage Registrar, which, the court said, “falsified his claim of transparency.”
The court further noted that Alam had taken inconsistent positions — earlier calling his second marriage “irregular” in the maintenance case — and held that he could not “take advantage of his own wrong.”
Before the High Court, Alam’s lawyer Manoj Kumar Sinha argued that under Mohammadan Law, a man is permitted up to four marriages and that the Family Court erred by ignoring this.
But the division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar firmly rejected this reasoning, clarifying that once parties marry under the Special Marriage Act, they are bound only by that Act.
The bench referred to Section 4(a) of the Act, which explicitly states that “neither party has a spouse living” at the time of marriage. The judges further explained that the Special Marriage Act begins with a non obstante clause — “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law” — meaning it overrides all personal or religious laws.
Quoting precedent, the court relied on Anwar Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1989 All LJ 303), observing that even if personal law allows polygamy, a Muslim man who contracts a second marriage under the Special Marriage Act commits bigamy punishable under Section 494 IPC. The court also cited Suman Kundra v. Sanjeev Kundra (AIR 2015 Del 124) to reiterate that once a marriage is registered under the SMA, all marital rights and remedies flow solely from it.
The High Court upheld the Family Court’s findings that Alam’s concealment, his prior marriage, and the wife’s apprehension of danger justified her decision to live apart. Rejecting Alam’s claim that the judgment was “perverse,” the court found “no misreading of evidence or illegality” in the lower court’s decision.
Finally, the division bench concluded:
“The appellant has failed to establish any element of perversity… the judgment requires no interference.”
The appeal was therefore dismissed in full.
Explanatory Table of All Laws & Sections Mentioned
| LAW / ACT | SECTION / PROVISION | PURPOSE / DESCRIPTION | COURT’S INTERPRETATION / RELEVANCE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Section 22 – Restitution of Conjugal Rights | Allows either spouse to seek a decree when the other withdraws from marital society without reasonable cause. | Alam’s petition was filed under this section. Court held wife’s withdrawal justified because husband hid his existing marriage. |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Section 4(a) | Sets the basic condition for valid marriage – “neither party has a spouse living.” | The key provision. The court held that since Alam had a living spouse, his second marriage under SMA was void. |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 494 – Bigamy | Punishes marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife. | Court cited Anwar Ahmed v. State of U.P. (1989 All LJ 303) — a Muslim man marrying again under SMA commits bigamy under Section 494 IPC. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 125 – Maintenance of Wife | Provides maintenance to wife, children, and parents if neglected. | Wife’s earlier case under this section had been allowed — Alam was directed to pay ₹8,000/month. His failure to pay was noted. |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Section 19(i) | Provides for appeals to the High Court against judgments of Family Courts. | Alam filed the current first appeal under this provision. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 9 – Restitution of Conjugal Rights | Parallel provision to SMA Section 22 (for Hindus). | Quoted by the court as pari materia (same in nature) to explain the objective of Section 22 SMA. |
| Judicial Definition (Oxford & English Law) | “Conjugal Rights” | Right of husband and wife to each other’s society and marital intercourse. | Cited by court to explain that conjugal rights are inherent in marriage, not just statutory. |
| Judicial Precedent | Anwar Ahmed v. State of U.P., 1989 All LJ 303 | Muslim man contracting a second marriage under SMA commits bigamy. | Cited to show that SMA overrides personal law. |
| Judicial Precedent | Suman Kundra v. Sanjeev Kundra, AIR 2015 Del 124 | Marriage under SMA is governed only by SMA, not personal or religious law. | Reinforced that SMA is secular and independent of religion. |
| Judicial Precedent | Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 85 | Defines circumstances under which restitution can be granted. | Cited to explain when a decree for restitution is appropriate. |
| Judicial Precedent | Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 | Explained meaning of “perverse” finding. | Court relied on this to reject Alam’s claim that the Family Court’s finding was perverse. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Md. Akil Alam v. Tumpa Chakravarty
- Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
- Case Number: F.A. No. 24 of 2024
- Judgment Date: 6th October, 2025
- Decree Signed On: 11th December, 2023 (by Family Court, Deoghar)
- Coram / Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar
- Appellant: Md. Akil Alam, Pathologist, Resident of Makhdum Colony, Amarpur, Dhanbad
- Respondent: Tumpa Chakravarty, Daughter of Shambhu Nath Chakravarty, Resident of Deoghar
- Advocate for Appellant: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha
- Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary
- Appeal Filed Under: Section 19(i) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
- Originating Case: Original Suit No. 137 of 2021 (Family Court, Deoghar)
- Type of Petition: Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
- Decision of Family Court (Deoghar): Petition dismissed with cost on 28.11.2023
- Decision of Jharkhand High Court: Appeal dismissed — concealment of first marriage proved; Special Marriage Act overrides personal law
- Uploaded On: 9th October, 2025
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised