Muslim women can claim damages from bigamous husband, rules Madras High Court

A Muslim woman is entitled to claim damages/compensation from her bigamous husband since his act would amount to inflicting mental harm on her and squarely fall under the definition of the term ‘domestic violence’ under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has held.

A Muslim woman is entitled to claim damages/compensation from her bigamous husband since his act would amount to inflicting mental harm on her and squarely fall under the definition of the term ‘domestic violence’ under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has held.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan also held that if a Muslim woman disputes the validity of the triple talaq (divorce) pronounced by her estranged husband, the latter must necessarily approach the courts and obtain a judicial declaration after satisfying the judge to have pronounced the talaq in the manner known to law.

He further ruled that the Shariat (canonical law based on the Quran) councils of no Jamath (a congregation of those who follow Islam) could deliver judgments on divorce. “Only courts duly constituted by the State can deliver judgments. Shariat council is a private body and not a court,” he stressed.

Justice Swaminathan’s verdict was delivered while dealing with a domestic dispute between a doctor couple. They had got married as per Islamic rites and customs in 2010 and had a son. In 2018, the woman, in government service, lodged a complaint under the 2005 Act.

A Judicial Magistrate, in 2021, allowed her plea and directed the husband to pay a compensation of ₹5 lakh to his wife for the domestic violence inflicted on her. A sessions court upheld the order in 2022 and hence, the husband had approached the High Court by way of the present criminal revision petition in 2023.

The petitioner claimed to have issued three talaq notices to his estranged wife — on August 3, 2017, September 11, 2017, and November 11, 2017 — before marrying another woman. However, the woman doctor claimed that the third notice was not served on her and therefore, asserted that her marriage continued to be in subsistence.

After hearing both sides, the judge pointed out that the definition of the term ‘domestic violence’ as set out in Section 3 of the 2005 Act “would include any act or conduct of the husband which injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental to the wife.” He said bigamy would amount to causing mental harm.