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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Accusing her of \u201cwithdrawal from his society without reasonable cause,\u201d<\/strong> he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, claiming he was \u201cready and willing to maintain her with dignity.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the wife opposed the plea, calling it \u201cmisconceived and unwarranted.\u201d<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u20b98,000 per month. She also complained that he failed to make regular payments and that she faced \u201cthreats to her life from him and his first wife.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court dismissed Alam\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court also pointed out contradictions in Alam\u2019s 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, \u201cfalsified his claim of transparency.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The court further noted that Alam had taken inconsistent positions \u2014 earlier calling his second marriage \u201cirregular\u201d<\/strong> in the maintenance case \u2014 and held that he could not \u201ctake advantage of his own wrong.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bench referred to Section 4(a) of the Act, which explicitly states that \u201cneither party has a spouse living\u201d at the time of marriage. The judges further explained that the Special Marriage Act begins with a non obstante clause \u2014 \u201cNotwithstanding anything contained in any other law\u201d<\/strong> \u2014 meaning it overrides all personal or religious laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n The High Court upheld the Family Court\u2019s findings that Alam\u2019s concealment, his prior marriage, and the wife\u2019s apprehension of danger justified her decision to live apart. Rejecting Alam\u2019s claim that the judgment was \u201cperverse,\u201d<\/strong> the court found \u201cno misreading of evidence or illegality\u201d<\/strong> in the lower court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the division bench concluded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe appellant has failed to establish any element of perversity\u2026 the judgment requires no interference.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The appeal was therefore dismissed in full.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before the High Court, Alam\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Jharkhand](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Jharkhand-High-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Explanatory Table of All Laws & Sections Mentioned<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
LAW \/ ACT<\/th> SECTION \/ PROVISION<\/th> PURPOSE \/ DESCRIPTION<\/th> COURT\u2019S INTERPRETATION \/ RELEVANCE<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Special Marriage Act, 1954<\/td> Section 22 \u2013 Restitution of Conjugal Rights<\/td> Allows either spouse to seek a decree when the other withdraws from marital society without reasonable cause.<\/td> Alam\u2019s petition was filed under this section. Court held wife\u2019s withdrawal justified because husband hid his existing marriage.<\/td><\/tr> Special Marriage Act, 1954<\/td> Section 4(a)<\/td> Sets the basic condition for valid marriage \u2013 \u201cneither party has a spouse living.\u201d<\/td> The key provision. The court held that since Alam had a living spouse, his second marriage under SMA was void.<\/td><\/tr> Indian Penal Code, 1860<\/td> Section 494 \u2013 Bigamy<\/td> Punishes marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife.<\/td> Court cited Anwar Ahmed v. State of U.P. (1989 All LJ 303) \u2014 a Muslim man marrying again under SMA commits bigamy under Section 494 IPC.<\/td><\/tr> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/td> Section 125 \u2013 Maintenance of Wife<\/td> Provides maintenance to wife, children, and parents if neglected.<\/td> Wife\u2019s earlier case under this section had been allowed \u2014 Alam was directed to pay \u20b98,000\/month. His failure to pay was noted.<\/td><\/tr> Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a><\/td> Section 19(i)<\/td> Provides for appeals to the High Court against judgments of Family Courts.<\/td> Alam filed the current first appeal under this provision.<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/td> Section 9 \u2013 Restitution of Conjugal Rights<\/td> Parallel provision to SMA Section 22 (for Hindus).<\/td> Quoted by the court as pari materia (same in nature) to explain the objective of Section 22 SMA.<\/td><\/tr> Judicial Definition (Oxford & English Law)<\/td> \u201cConjugal Rights\u201d<\/td> Right of husband and wife to each other\u2019s society and marital intercourse.<\/td> Cited by court to explain that conjugal rights are inherent in marriage, not just statutory.<\/td><\/tr> Judicial Precedent<\/td> Anwar Ahmed v. State of U.P., 1989 All LJ 303<\/td> Muslim man contracting a second marriage under SMA commits bigamy.<\/td> Cited to show that SMA overrides personal law.<\/td><\/tr> Judicial Precedent<\/td> Suman Kundra v. Sanjeev Kundra, AIR 2015 Del 124<\/td> Marriage under SMA is governed only by SMA, not personal or religious law.<\/td> Reinforced that SMA is secular and independent of religion.<\/td><\/tr> Judicial Precedent<\/td> Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 85<\/td> Defines circumstances under which restitution can be granted.<\/td> Cited to explain when a decree for restitution is appropriate.<\/td><\/tr> Judicial Precedent<\/td> Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206<\/td> Explained meaning of \u201cperverse\u201d finding.<\/td> Court relied on this to reject Alam\u2019s claim that the Family Court\u2019s finding was perverse.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n