For a remarriage to be valid under Muslim law, proof of dissolution of any intervening marriages is essential; cohabitation does not confer legal marital status if prior unions remain unresolved.

ORDER :

Kauser Edappagath, J.

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram, in MC No.270/2022 dated4/7/2024.

2. The parties are Muslims governed by the Muslim Personal Law. The petitioner married the respondent on 9/5/1983 in accordance with Muslim customary rites. In the said wedlock, a girl child named Shabna was born. The marriage lasted only for three years. On 20/9/1986, the petitioner divorced the respondent by pronouncing talaq. On the next day itself, i.e. on 21/9/1986, the petitioner contracted a second marriage with Mrs. Asmabi. Four children were born in the said wedlock. On 4/4/1991, the respondent married Mr. Moideenkoya. According to the respondent, the marriage lasted only for one year. However, the dissolution of the marriage between the respondent and Mr. Moideenkoya is disputed by the petitioner. The second wife of the petitioner, Mrs. Asmabi, expired on 6/11/2020. According to the petitioner, after her death, he contracted a third marriage with Mrs. Kadeeja. The respondent filed a maintenance case against the petitioner, claiming maintenance invoking Section 125 of CR.P.C . before the Family Court as MC No.270/2022, alleging that she remarried the petitioner on 27/4/2012 in accordance with the Muslim customary rites.

3. The petitioner resisted the maintenance case, mainly contending that there was no second marriage between him and the respondent as alleged. The petitioner has also denied the case of the respondent that her marriage with her second husband, Mr. Moideenkoya, was dissolved. According to the petitioner, since there was no marriage between him and the respondent on 27/4/2012 as alleged, he is not liable to provide maintenance to the respondent. However, the Family Court, after appreciation of evidence, repelled the said contention of the petitioner and granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of `6,000/- per month from the date of the petition as per the impugned order.

4. I have heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.Samsudin, the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has miserably failed to prove the dissolution of her second marriage with Mr.Moideenkoya and the alleged remarriage with the petitioner, and hence the Family Court went wrong in awarding maintenance to her. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the evidence adduced by the respondent is sufficient to prove the dissolution of her second marriage as well as the solemnisation of her remarriage with the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that proceedings under Section 125 of CR.P.C , being summary in nature, strict proof of marriage is not necessary. The learned counsel also submitted that if there is evidence to prove long cohabitation, maintenance under Section 125 could be ordered even without strict proof of marriage. Reliance was placed on Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another , (2011) 1 SCC 141 and Kamala and Others v. M.R.Mohan Kumar , (2019) 11 SC 491.

6. Both admit their first marriage and its dissolution by the pronouncement of talaq. However, their alleged remarriage on 27/4/2012 is in dispute. The entire controversy revolves around the question of the legal validity and proof of remarriage between the petitioner and the respondent.

7. The marriage under Muslim law is a religi