The Patna High Court highlighted the serious cruelty and harm that occurs to the first wife when a Muslim man marries again on May 3, 2024, even though they denied Irshad Kuraishi anticipatory bail.
While it is legal for a Muslim man to marry more than once, Justice Purnendu Singh noted that this has serious repercussions for the first wife.
“It’s a well-known fact that women, regardless of their religion or socio-economic status, strongly oppose their husbands taking a second wife,” noted Justice Purnendu Singh.
The observations were made while the court was considering the bail plea of Irshad Kuraishi, who was charged under Sections 323, 498A, and 406/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Initially, Kuraishi was granted pre-arrest bail on the condition that he would express his willingness to live with his first wife within three weeks by filing an affidavit. However, instead of complying with the condition, he chose to approach the Supreme Court against the Patna High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court, finding the High Court’s order lacking examination of the case’s merits, sent the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration.
The complainant, who is the first wife, alleged that soon after their marriage in July 2021, Kuraishi demanded a gold chain and a ring from her. When she failed to meet this demand, she was subjected to cruelty and assault. Kuraishi and others forcibly removed her from their matrimonial home and kept her belongings and valuables, prompting her to file a complaint.
However, Kuraishi claimed that his wife stayed with him for only 15 days and did not complain of any cruelty or assault during that time. He further alleged that she was pregnant before their marriage, a claim she denied.
The High Court observed that Kuraishi had entered into a second marriage without divorcing his first wife. While Islamic law permits multiple marriages, the Court stressed that legality doesn’t equate to justifiability in married life.
“The petitioner couldn’t be allowed to play with the dignity and life of a woman at his discretion,” the Court stated.
The Court also noted Kuraishi’s conduct during the proceedings, where he loudly stated in court that although he hadn’t given his first wife a divorce, he didn’t want to live with her. Despite alleging that his first wife was carrying a 19-week and 4-day-old fetus at the time of their marriage, he failed to provide any evidence to support this claim.
Justice Purnendu Singh, in the judgment, noted, “Today, the demeanour and conduct of the petitioner, who stated in court that he doesn’t want to live with his first wife and simultaneously alleged that she was carrying a 19-week and 4-day-old fetus at the time of their marriage, without providing any evidence, cannot be appreciated.”
The Court further stated, “The petitioner cannot be allowed to play with the dignity and life of a woman at his own will.” It highlighted the petitioner’s attempt to seek bail by expressing readiness for a one-time settlement, without taking any legal steps.
Referring to the constitutional safeguard, the judgment made it clear that the time taken for the journey to produce the accused before the Magistrate shall be excluded because of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Sections 57 and 76 of the Cr.P.C.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed Kuraishi’s anticipatory bail plea.
Case Name: Md. Irshad Kuraishi Vs. State of Bihar
Case No.: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60431 of 2022
Bench: Justice Purnendu Singh
Order Dated: 03.5.2024
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
