Jharkhand High Court gave a big blow to Mohammad Akil Alam, a pathologist from Dhanbad, when he tried to legalize his second marriage on the basis of Islamic law. The court clearly said that if the marriage has taken place under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, then only its law will apply and not any personal or religious law. This decision not only rejected Akil’s petition, but also set an important precedent in the legal field.

What is the whole matter?

Pathologist Mohammad Akil Alam, resident of Dhanbad, had his second marriage under the Special Marriage Act on August 4, 2015. But just a few months after the marriage, on October 10, 2015, his wife left the house and moved to her maternal home in Deoghar. Akil claimed in the court that his wife left him without any concrete reason and did not return despite repeated calls. After this, Akil filed a petition in the family court of Deoghar for restoration of marital rights.

However, in this case the wife made a shocking revelation before the court. He told that Akil was already married and he also had two daughters from his first wife. The wife also alleged that Akil had demanded that the property be transferred to his father’s name and when this did not happen, she was assaulted.

What did the family court say?

During the hearing in the family court, Akil himself admitted that his first wife was alive at the time of marriage. The court found that Akil had hidden this fact during marriage registration. Not only this, Akil had earlier declared his second marriage illegal, so that he would not have to pay maintenance to his wife. But later, after validating the same marriage, he started demanding the return of his wife. The Family Court rejected his claims and ruled against him.

High Court’s strict stance

Akil approached the Jharkhand High Court to challenge the decision of the Family Court. A bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar heard the case. The court upheld the decision of the Family Court and clarified that under Section 4(A) of the Special Marriage Act, neither party should have a living husband or wife at the time of marriage. The court also said that the Act begins with a non obstante clause, meaning that its law will be superior to any religious or personal law. On this basis Akil’s petition was rejected.