What did the Kerala High Court decide in Abdurahiman v. Khairunnessa?

The Court granted the wife a divorce, holding that failure to treat a wife equitably in a polygamous marriage falls under Section 2(viii)(f) of the 1939 Act and that forcing a woman to endure such inequity negates her right to live with dignity under Article 21.

What does ‘treat equitably’ mean under Section 2(viii)(f) of the 1939 Act?

It requires fair, just, and respectful treatment among co-wives, assessed from the wife’s standpoint. If equity is missing, she can seek dissolution.

How did Article 21 influence the ruling?

The Court read the right to life to include a dignified, harmonious matrimonial life. Compelling a wife to share her marriage without equitable treatment violates that dignity.

What practical relief did the wife get?

A decree of divorce based on inequitable treatment and failure to maintain and perform marital obligations.

Law Easy

31 October, 2025

201

Abdurahiman v. Khairunnessa Case Summary (Kerala High Court, 2010) – The Law Easy

CASE_TITLE Abdurahiman v. Khairunnessa Kerala High Court 2010 Citation: Not specified Family / Personal Law Reading: ~6 min

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi

LOCATION: India

PUBLISH_DATE: 31 Oct 2025

Abdurahiman v. Khairunnessa (Kerala High Court, 2010)

Q: Does this case ban polygamy?

No. It clarifies that polygamy is tolerable only if the husband can deal justly with all wives; otherwise, the affected wife can dissolve the marriage.

Understanding “equitable treatment” under Section 2(viii)(f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, and how Article 21 protects dignity in marriage.

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: equitable treatment; DMMA s.2(viii)(f); Article 21 SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: polygamy; maintenance; cruelty; marital obligations Slug: abdurahiman-v-khairunnessa

```

Quick Summary

This Kerala High Court decision explains what “treat equitably” means under Section 2(viii)(f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The Court said that in a polygamous setup, fairness is judged from the wife’s point of view. If she is not treated justly, she may seek divorce. The Court read Article 21 to include a dignified and harmonious marital life. Forcing a wife to share marriage without equitable treatment negates her dignity and right to live meaningfully. The decree of divorce was upheld.

Court: Kerala High Court
Date: 01 Mar 2010
Law: DMMA, 1939 & Article 21

Issues

How should courts read “does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran” in Section 2(viii)(f)?
Does Article 21 include the right to a healthy, harmonious matrimonial life with dignity and self-respect?

Rules

Under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, a Muslim wife may obtain divorce on grounds including:

Neglect or failure to provide maintenance for two years.
Failure to perform marital obligations, without reasonable cause, for three years.
Cruelty, including habitual assault or making life miserable even without physical violence.
If he has more wives than one, failure to treat her equitably in line with Quranic injunctions (Section 2(viii)(f)).

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline illustration for Abdurahiman v. Khairunnessa case facts

1980: Marriage solemnized under Muslim customs; the couple later had four children.

Husband employed abroad; wife joined him and worked as a teacher.

Husband lost his job; both returned to India. A joint residence was set up.

Wife gave money and gold believing property would be in her name; later learned it was not.

Husband’s behavior changed: cruelty alleged; no maintenance; marital obligations not performed.

Wife relegated to a small separate house with minimal facilities.

Husband entered a second marriage and began living with the second wife.

Wife filed for divorce under Section 2(viii)(f) citing lack of equitable treatment; husband denied allegations.

Trial court granted divorce; the husband appealed.

Arguments

Appellant (Husband)

Denied cruelty, neglect, and failure of obligations.
Contended that polygamy was permissible and he acted within law.
Disputed claim that property dealings were unfair or deceptive.

Respondent (Wife)

Asserted non-maintenance and non-performance of marital duties.
Alleged cruelty and relegation to inferior living conditions.
Claimed inequitable treatment after second marriage, violating Section 2(viii)(f).

Judgment (Held)

Judgment illustration for Abdurahiman v. Khairunnessa

The High Court upheld the divorce. It reaffirmed that the basis of tolerated polygamy is the husband’s ability to act justly among co-wives. Equity is measured from the wife’s perspective. If she is not satisfied because fairness is missing, she may leave the marriage. The Court read Article 21 to protect a dignified, harmonious marital life. Compelling a wife to share her marriage without equitable treatment is a negation of her right to live with dignity.

Ratio Decidendi

“Treat equitably” under Section 2(viii)(f) demands real, practical fairness between co-wives, judged from the wife’s viewpoint.
Article 21 includes the right to a meaningful, dignified matrimonial life; forced sharing without equity violates dignity.
Where equity is absent, the wife is entitled to dissolution of marriage.

Why It Matters

This ruling centers the wife’s lived reality in assessing equity and links personal law grounds to constitutional dignity. It offers a clear pathway for relief where polygamy results in unfairness, non-maintenance, or neglect of marital duties.

Key Takeaways

Equity is not a label; it is a lived standard tested against the wife’s perspective.
Article 21 protects dignity and harmony within marriage.
Non-maintenance and non-performance of marital duties strengthen the ground for dissolution.
Polygamy is lawful only with genuine fairness; otherwise, divorce is justified.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: FAIR LIFE — Fairness, Article 21, Inequity → Relief; Live with Dignity, not in Fear or Exclusion.

Spot inequity: compare treatment with the second wife.
Link to Article 21: dignity + harmonious life.
Apply Section 2(viii)(f): decree for dissolution where fairness fails.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Meaning of “treat equitably” in polygamy under Section 2(viii)(f) and whether Article 21 protects a dignified marital life.

Rule

DMMA, 1939 grounds for dissolution; constitutional right to life with dignity (Article 21).

Application

Husband failed to maintain, perform marital obligations, and ensure fair treatment after second marriage. Wife’s standpoint showed inequity and indignity.

Conclusion

Divorce upheld due to lack of equitable treatment and breach of dignified marital life protected by Article 21.

Glossary

Equitable Treatment: Fair, respectful, and balanced treatment among co-wives, tested from the wife’s perspective.
Polygamy: Marriage to more than one spouse; tolerated only with true justice.
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, read to include dignity and meaningful marital life.
Maintenance: Husband’s obligation to support the wife’s basic needs.
Marital Obligations: Duties arising from marriage, including companionship, support, and respect.
DMMA, 1939: Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, providing grounds for a Muslim wife to seek divorce.

FAQs

Whether the wife, from her own perspective, receives fair and just treatment in a polygamous marriage. If not, Section 2(viii)(f) enables dissolution.

Article 21 protects the right to a meaningful life with dignity. Forced sharing without equity undermines dignity and violates Article 21.

Yes. The decision recognizes that polygamy is tolerated only if the husband can deal justly with all wives; otherwise, the affected wife may exit the marriage.

The decree for divorce was affirmed due to inequitable treatment and breach of marital duties.

Yes. Non-maintenance and cruelty supported the wife’s claim and highlighted the lack of equitable treatment.

```

Comment

Nothing for now