Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void If First Marriage Subsists: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, during the subsistence of an earlier marriage, is void ab initio, even if the parties are governed by a personal law that permits polygamy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265]The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that such a marriage does not confer the status of a...
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, during the subsistence of an earlier marriage, is void ab initio, even if the parties are governed by a personal law that permits polygamy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265]
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that such a marriage does not confer the status of a legally wedded wife upon the second spouse.
Noting the above, the court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a woman who sought to be impleaded as a legal representative of her deceased husband in a partition suit.
The court held that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was in violation of Section 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act, which mandates that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage.
“…Once parties voluntarily choose to solemnize their marriage under the Act, they are governed by the mandatory conditions prescribed therein. The statutory requirement that neither party should have a spouse living cannot be diluted by resorting to personal law or any equitable considerations… It is true that Mohammedan personal law, subject to the conditions and limitations recognised therein, permits a Muslim male to contract more than one marriage. Such permissibility, however, operates only within the domain of personal law governing marriages solemnized thereunder…”, the court observed in the order.
The petitioner, claiming to be the second wife of the deceased, applied to be impleaded as a legal representative along with her daughter in the partition suit before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ballari. She alleged that she had married the deceased on April 24, 2008, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and had obtained a marriage certificate.
While the applications were initially allowed on September 11, 2024, the order was challenged before the High Court. The Court set aside the order and remitted the matter to the trial court to conduct an enquiry into the status of the applicants.
The trial court, after the enquiry, concluded that the petitioner's marriage was void ab initio. The court reasoned that the first marriage was subsisting on the date of the alleged marriage, and hence rejected the petitioner's application for impleadment while permitting the daughter to be brought on record.
The High Court noted that the petitioner herself had admitted in her affidavit that she was the second wife of the deceased and that his first wife was alive.
“…Once these foundational facts stand admitted, the inevitable consequence is that the alleged marriage dated 24.04.2008, though stated to have been solemnized under the Act, was in direct violation of Section 4(a) of the Act….”, the court held.
The Court further held that Muslim personal law cannot override the statutory mandate under Section 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act, by relying on MD Akhil Alam v. Tumpa Chakravarti.
“…The legal position undergoes a fundamental change when a party voluntarily elects to solemnize a marriage under the provisions of the Act. The Act is a secular and self-contained code governing the conditions, solemnization and consequences of marriages contracted under its provisions. Once parties consciously invoke the provisions of the Act instead of their personal law, they subject themselves to the mandatory statutory regime enacted by Parliament. The rights and obligations flowing from such marriage are therefore determined not by personal law but exclusively by the provisions of the Act….”, the court said.
The court underscored that parties cannot selectively invoke the benefits of the Special Marriage Act while simultaneously claiming exemptions under their personal law.
“…where a marriage is admittedly solemnized under the Act during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage, its validity has necessarily to be tested exclusively on the touchstone of the provisions of the Act, and if the statutory conditions are found to be violated, the marriage is void from its inception and does not confer the legal status of husband or wife upon the parties thereto…”, the court held further.
The court also clarified that a child born from the void marriage can represent his or her legal rights in appropriate proceedings.
“…Children born from a void marriage are entitled to statutory protection and are competent to represent their legal rights in appropriate proceedings. Bearing this settled legal position in mind, the Trial Court has permitted proposed defendant No.2(f), namely the daughter, to come on record”, the court said further.
Hence the Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the Trial Court's order after enquiry.
Case Title: K v. M
Case No: Writ Petition No. 107250 of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265