MYPolygyny

Home › Malaysia & ASEAN › Court cases

Case library

Summaries of Syariah Court cases on polygyny

21 court decisions on polygyny applications, fasakh, the offence of polygyny without permission, and confirmation of marriages abroad. Each case is summarised with the conditions of s.23 tested and its source.

⏱ 14 minit bacaan§ 12 bahagian📚 6 sumber🗓 Kemas kini: 5 Okt 2026
📘 Apa yang anda akan pelajari

Key point: The Syariah Court assesses each condition separately — just or necessary, financial, justice and no harm — and many applications are refused because the husband fails to prove them. The existing wife must be heard, and if the husband is unjust after taking another wife, the wife may apply for fasakh.

Amalan minggu ini
  1. Read the section 'Principles that can be drawn' to understand how the courts assess
  2. Wives: keep records of maintenance and time given as evidence if needed
  3. Husbands: assess your record of responsibility towards your existing family honestly
Sekilas pandang
Perpustakaan kes

Keputusan yang diringkaskan

21Keputusan mahkamahpermohonan, fasakh, kesalahan dan pengesahan nikah
19Mahkamah Syariah Malaysia
2Singapurasebagai perbandingan
4Syarat s.23(5)dibaca kumulatif — gagal satu sudah cukup untuk ditolak
Alor Setar 2020–2022

Syarat yang gagal dibuktikan

Kes(a) Patut/perlu(b) Kewangan(c) Adil(d) DararKeputusan
Syed Zulhusmi (2020)✓✓✓✓Diluluskan
Mohd. Asrol (2020)✗———Ditolak
Shazril Imran (2021)✗———Ditolak
Ismail bin Bahari (2022)—✗——Ditolak
Ridzuan (2022)—✗——Ditolak
Azhar bin Awang (2020)—✗✗—Ditolak
Mohd Rozaiman (2022)——✗—Ditolak
Mohamad Sazali (2022)———✗Ditolak

1About this case library

This page gathers 21 court decisions on polygyny: 19 from the Malaysian Syariah Courts and 2 from Singapore for comparison. Each case is summarised in the same format: citation, court and year, facts, issue, decision, principle and source.

These cases show how the courts apply the conditions in section 23 of the Islamic family law. A full explanation of the conditions is in Polygyny in Malaysia, and their fiqh basis in Fiqh of polygyny.

These summaries are drawn from academic journal articles and press reports, not from the full text of the judgments. For litigation, consult the original reports (JH, ShLR, MLJ, LNS) or the court files through a Syariah lawyer. Details that could not be verified are marked "(to be verified)".

2Case index

This table lists all cases by section. "(a)–(d)" refers to the paragraphs of s.23(5) in enactments such as Selangor 2003 and Kedah 2008 (s.23(4) in Act 303 and in older laws).

#CaseCitation / case no.Court, yearDecisionCondition / issueCard
1Aishah v Wan Mohd Yusof[1990] 3 MLJ lxSelangor Syariah Appeal Board, 1990Wife's appeal allowedAll conditions; (a) just/necessarySee
2Rajamah v Abdul Wahab(1990) 7 JH 171Selangor Syariah Appeal Board, 1990Wife's appeal allowed(b) financialSee
3Ramona Juita v Engku Nazarudin(1999) 13 JH 215Kuantan Syariah High Court, 1999Retrial; permission suspendedHearing procedureSee
4Ruzaini bin Hassan v Nurhafizah(2002) 15 JH 79N. Sembilan Syariah Court, 2002Refused(b) financialSee
5Shariff bin Jamaludin v Kuning(2002) 15 JH 173N. Sembilan Syariah High Court, 2002Approved + maintenance orderWife's standard of livingSee
6Zambri bin Idrus v Zaiti Akhtar[2017] 4 ShLR 12Selangor, 2017RefusedAll conditions; harmSee
7Maulidah binti Ngah v Rosma[2017] 3 LNS 302017Definition of justice(c) justSee
8Syed Zulhusmi v Nor Anrina02200-011-0088-2020Alor Setar Syariah High Court, 2020ApprovedAll conditions metSee
9Mohd. Asrol v Noorhafiza02200-011-0182-2020Alor Setar Syariah High Court, 2020Refused(a) just/necessarySee
10Shazril Imran v Aizureen02200-011-0010-2021Alor Setar Syariah High Court, 2021Refused(a) just/necessarySee
11Ismail bin Bahari v Fairus02200-011-0024-2022Alor Setar Syariah High Court, 2022Refused(b) financialSee
12Ridzuan bin Abdul Razak v Nik Yam02200-011-0119-2022Alor Setar Syariah High Court, 2022Refused(b) financialSee
13Azhar bin Awang v Che Gayah02100-011-0018-2020Alor Setar, 2020Refused(b) financial; (c) justSee
14Mohd Rozaiman v Nurfalizan02200-011-0063-2022Alor Setar Syariah High Court, 2022Refused(c) justSee
15Mohamad Sazali v Nurraihan02200-011-0160-2022Alor Setar Syariah High Court, 2022Refused(d) darar syarieSee
16Mohd Alwi v Faizah(1999) 13 JH 771999Fasakh grantedJustice after polygynySee
17Joan Mary Sulaiman v Sulaiman(1993) 10 JH 861993Fasakh grantedMaintenance & rotationSee
18The Bung Moktar Radin casePress reportsGombak Timur Syariah Subordinate Court, 2010One month's imprisonment (s.124)Kesalahan tanpa kebenaranSee
19Siti Aishah v Mohd Johari[2013] 4 ShLR 77Terengganu, 2013Marriage abroad validMarriage confirmationSee
20Re Salleh bin Suati (Singapore)[1990] 2 MLJ xxixAppeal Board, Singapore, 1990Appeal dismissedFinances; justiceSee
21Ayisha Begum v Hajiah Maideen[1988] 3 MLJ xlvSyariah Appeal Board, 1988Objective testJustice (objective test)See

3The conditions tested by the courts

The court summons the applicant, the existing wife, the intended wife and her wali to a closed hearing. Permission is granted only if the court is satisfied that:

  1. (a) just or necessary: having regard to, among other things, the barrenness, physical infirmity, physical unfitness for sexual relations, wilful refusal to comply with an order for restitution of conjugal rights, or insanity on the part of the existing wife;
  2. (b) financial ability to support all the wives and dependants according to Hukum Syarak, including the new dependants;
  3. (c) just treatment of all the wives according to Hukum Syarak;
  4. (d) no darar syarie (harm recognised by Syariah law) to the existing wife.

The text above follows s.23(5) of the Kedah Enactment 2008, which according to the UUM article is pari materia with Act 303 and other state enactments. The amendment of Act 303 by Act A1261 (passed by Parliament in 2005, in force 1 Nov 2010) changed "just and necessary" to "just or necessary". That is why the cases of the 1990s use the word "and".

The first wife's consent is not one of the conditions and does not bind the court. Conversely, her objection does not necessarily prevent approval either.

4Appeal cases and early cases (1990–2002)

These cases lay the foundation: the burden of proof is on the husband, each condition is assessed separately, and the wife must be heard.

Aishah binti Abdul Rauf v Wan Mohd Yusof bin Wan OthmanCitation: [1990] 3 MLJ lx; (1990) 7 JH 152
Court & year: Selangor Syariah Appeal Board Committee, 1990
Facts: The husband applied for permission to practise polygyny and the trial judge granted it. The judge was satisfied that the husband could support more than one wife and feared that the husband and his intended wife would commit zina if they were not allowed to marry. The existing wife appealed.
Issue: Is it enough for the court to assess financial ability alone, without assessing the other conditions of s.23(4) of the Islamic Family Law Enactment of Selangor 1984?
Decision: The wife's appeal was allowed; the polygyny permission was set aside. The trial judge had considered only condition (b) and accepted the husband's bare assertions without evidence for conditions (a), (c) and (d).
Principle: The burden of proof lies on the husband for each condition. All four conditions are equally important and must be assessed separately; failure of condition (a) just and necessary alone is enough to refuse the application. The conditions do not conflict with the Qur'an, since they aim to secure justice for wives, not to abolish polygyny.
Source: Nora Abdul Hak, (2008) 16 IIUMLJ 141
Note: After being refused in Selangor, the couple married in Terengganu. According to the source, the Selangor Syariah courts at that time had not yet been given jurisdiction to prosecute that offence.
Rajamah v Abdul Wahab b LongCitation: (1990) 7 JH 171
Court & year: Selangor Syariah Appeal Board Committee, 1990
Facts: The husband was granted permission for polygyny at trial. The wife appealed against that decision.
Issue: Who bears the burden of proving the ability to support more than one wife, and was this husband able?
Decision: The wife's appeal was allowed. After examining the husband's financial evidence, the Board ruled that he was unable to support two wives.
Principle: The condition of financial ability (s.23(4)(b) of the law at the time; now s.23(5)(b) in most states). The burden of proof lies on the husband.
Source: Nora Abdul Hak, (2008) 16 IIUMLJ 141
Note: Other factual details are not stated in the source.
Ramona Juita Abdullah v Engku Nazarudin b Engku MuhamedCitation: (1999) 13 JH 215
Court & year: Kuantan Syariah High Court, Pahang (appeal from the Pekan Syariah Court), 1999
Facts: The couple married in 1973 and had no children. The husband applied for polygyny at the Pekan Syariah Court. The wife was absent because she was receiving treatment in Australia, and the court approved the application without hearing her evidence.
Issue: Can polygyny permission be granted without hearing the existing wife's evidence?
Decision: The case was sent for retrial before another judge; the polygyny permission was suspended pending the decision; the court ordered sulh (mediation).
Principle: Procedure under s.23: the existing wife must be summoned and heard before the court assesses the conditions (hearing procedure, now s.23(5)).
Source: Nora Abdul Hak, (2008) 16 IIUMLJ 141
Ruzaini bin Hassan v Nurhafizah binti ManonCitation: (2002) 15 JH 79 (also cited as JH XV(1) 79)
Court & year: Negeri Sembilan Syariah Court, 2002
Facts: The husband applied for polygyny permission under s.23 of the Negeri Sembilan Islamic Family Law Enactment and described his financial position in detail.
Issue: Did the husband have the financial ability to support two families?
Decision: The application was refused: the court found that the applicant could not support a second wife.
Principle: The condition of financial ability. The existing wife's attitude (agreeing or objecting) does not bind the court.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM · Nora Abdul Hak, (2008) 16 IIUMLJ 141
Note: The sources conflict on the wife's attitude: the UUM article (2024) states that the wife agreed, while Nora Abdul Hak (2008) states that the first wife objected. (to be verified) against the original JH report.
Shariff bin Jamaludin v Kuning binti KassimCitation: (2002) 15 JH 173
Court & year: Negeri Sembilan Syariah High Court, 2002
Facts: The husband applied for polygyny; the wife did not agree and asked for a divorce, but the husband refused to divorce her. The wife applied for maintenance of RM500, child maintenance of RM1,000, division of savings and return of RM50,000 the husband had borrowed for a house deposit.
Issue: How does the court weigh the conditions for polygyny, including the condition concerning the existing wife's standard of living?
Decision: The polygyny application was approved, but the husband was ordered to pay maintenance to the wife and children.
Principle: The court listed five conditions: just and necessary; financial ability; just treatment; no darar syarie; and the new marriage not lowering the standard of living of the existing wife and dependants.
Source: Nora Abdul Hak, (2008) 16 IIUMLJ 141
Note: The final amount of maintenance ordered is not stated in the source.

5Reported cases 2017: cumulative conditions and the meaning of justice

Two cases often cited in current academic writing.

Zambri bin Idrus v Zaiti Akhtar binti OmarCitation: [2017] 4 ShLR 12
Court & year: Selangor Syariah Court, 2017 (level of court: to be verified)
Facts: The plaintiff applied for permission to practise polygyny under s.23(4) of the Islamic Family Law (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003.
Issue: Did the plaintiff meet the criteria of s.23(5)?
Decision: The application was refused: the plaintiff failed to meet all the conditions, and the proposed marriage was very likely to harm not only the wife, but also the children and third parties.
Principle: The conditions of s.23(5)(a)–(d) are read cumulatively (the word "and"); all must be met. Harm is assessed broadly, including harm to the children.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM
Maulidah binti Ngah v Rosma binti OmarCitation: [2017] 3 LNS 30
Court & year: 2017 (court and state: to be verified)
Facts: The source does not describe the facts of the case; it is quoted for its definition of justice in polygyny.
Issue: What is the "justice" required of a husband in polygyny?
Decision: The court explained that justice does not mean equality of feelings and affection, since that is beyond human ability.
Principle: The condition of just treatment (s.23(5)(c)): justice means what can be carried out, namely maintenance, the rotation of nights and drawing lots for travel, including justice towards children from different mothers.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM
Note: The facts, the successful party and the court are not stated in the source (to be verified).

6Alor Setar Syariah High Court: the "just or necessary" condition

The Kedah cases 2020–2022 are unreported; their numbers are court file numbers obtained from the e-Syariah system by the authors of the UUM article (one of whom is from the Research Unit of the Kedah Syariah Judiciary Department).

Syed Zulhusmi bin Syed Yusof v Nor Anrina binti IsmailCitation: Case no. 02200-011-0088-2020 (unreported)
Court & year: Alor Setar Syariah High Court, Kedah, 2020
Facts: The husband applied for polygyny under s.23 of the Islamic Family Law (Kedah Darul Aman) Enactment 2008. His reasons included avoiding sin and having children.
Issue: Did the applicant meet the conditions of s.23(5)?
Decision: The application was approved after the court was satisfied with the evidence of the applicant, the existing wife, the intended wife and her wali.
Principle: All the conditions of s.23(5) were met. This case shows the court approving a well-proven application.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM
Mohd. Asrol bin Abdul v Noorhafiza binti YahyaCitation: Case no. 02200-011-0182-2020 (unreported)
Court & year: Alor Setar Syariah High Court, Kedah, 2020
Facts: Among the applicant's reasons was to avoid sin. The court found that the existing wife had no health problem preventing marital relations.
Issue: Was the proposed marriage "just or necessary"?
Decision: The application was refused because the applicant's reasons were not convincing.
Principle: The condition of just or necessary (s.23(5)(a)): the reason "to avoid sin" alone is not sufficient without circumstances such as the wife's barrenness, physical infirmity or unfitness for sexual relations.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM
Shazril Imran bin Shaukat v Aizureen binti BurhanuddinCitation: Case no. 02200-011-0010-2021 (unreported)
Court & year: Alor Setar Syariah High Court, Kedah, 2021
Facts: The applicant did not allege any shortcoming on the wife's part and did not deny that the wife had carried out her responsibilities throughout the marriage.
Issue: Had the applicant proven reasons making polygyny "just or necessary"?
Decision: The application was refused: the applicant failed to prove his reasons.
Principle: The condition of just or necessary (s.23(5)(a)): the applicant bears the burden of proving the circumstances that make the marriage just or necessary.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM

7Alor Setar Syariah High Court: financial ability

The court examines payslips, deductions and actual expenses. Unproven side income is not taken into account.

Ismail bin Bahari v Fairus binti MohamadCitation: Case no. 02200-011-0024-2022 (unreported)
Court & year: Alor Setar Syariah High Court, Kedah, 2022
Facts: The applicant earned RM1,700 a month, had two children with his existing wife, and his monthly expenses were RM1,320.
Issue: Was the applicant able to support all the wives and dependants?
Decision: The application was refused: his existing finances did not give him the means for polygyny.
Principle: The condition of financial ability (s.23(5)(b)) is assessed from actual income and expenditure.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM
Ridzuan bin Abdul Razak v Nik Yam binti Abdul GhaniCitation: Case no. 02200-011-0119-2022 (unreported)
Court & year: Alor Setar Syariah High Court, Kedah, 2022
Facts: The applicant stated that his main reason was to avoid sin because one wife was not enough for him.
Issue: Did the applicant have the financial means and assets?
Decision: The application was refused: the court found that the applicant's expenditure would be in deficit if the application were allowed.
Principle: The condition of financial ability (s.23(5)(b)). Reasons of personal desire do not override financial failure.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM
Azhar bin Awang v Che Gayah binti UsofCitation: Case no. 02100-011-0018-2020 (unreported)
Court & year: Alor Setar Syariah High Court, Kedah, 2020 (listed as MTS Alor Setar in the source)
Facts: The applicant, an Assistant Supervisor, had a gross salary of RM2,227.24 but a net salary of only RM970.15 after deductions (EPF, SOCSO, advances, SIP). He claimed rent of RM350 but failed to prove it. The applicant and his wife had also not lived together for five years.
Issue: Was the applicant financially able and able to be just?
Decision: The application was refused.
Principle: Two conditions failed: finances (s.23(5)(b)) are assessed on net salary and proven income; justice (s.23(5)(c)): failure to manage the existing marriage shows an inability to be just.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM
Note: The case code begins 02100, unlike the other Alor Setar cases (02200); level of court (to be verified).

8Alor Setar Syariah High Court: justice and darar syarie

The husband's record in his existing marriage is the main evidence for the conditions of justice and harm.

Mohd Rozaiman bin Aziz v Nurfalizan binti AzaliCitation: Case no. 02200-011-0063-2022 (unreported)
Court & year: Alor Setar Syariah High Court, Kedah, 2022
Facts: The wife testified that she had to share the cost of living because the husband's income was insufficient, and that the husband did not spend enough time with the family. The applicant did not deny this evidence.
Issue: Was the applicant able to treat all the wives justly?
Decision: The application was refused.
Principle: The condition of just treatment (s.23(5)(c)): a husband who has not yet fulfilled his responsibilities to his existing family cannot show that he will be just to two families.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM
Mohamad Sazali bin Shaari v Nurraihan binti MuhamadanCitation: Case no. 02200-011-0160-2022 (unreported)
Court & year: Alor Setar Syariah High Court, Kedah, 2022
Facts: The court assessed the husband's ability to support the wives and dependants, and whether approval would affect the existing wife's standard of living.
Issue: Would the proposed marriage cause darar syarie to the existing wife?
Decision: The application was refused: the applicant could not support his existing marriage, so a new marriage would certainly cause darar syarie.
Principle: The condition of no darar syarie (s.23(5)(d)). A husband may not reduce the new wife's maintenance because she has her own income, or reduce the first wife's maintenance because it must be shared.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM

9After polygyny: fasakh for injustice

If a husband in a polygynous marriage is not just, the wife may apply for fasakh (Act 303 s.52(1)(h)(vi) and the equivalent state provisions). See also Talaq and dissolution.

Mohd Alwi bin Sari v Faizah Mohd GhazaliCitation: (1999) 13 JH 77
Court & year: Syariah Court (state: to be verified), 1999
Facts: The wife applied for fasakh because the husband had married again without her knowledge and then failed to treat his two families justly. The husband had told the second wife that he was single. The first wife suffered depression and stress; the husband denied all the allegations.
Issue: Had the husband failed to treat the wife justly according to Hukum Syarak?
Decision: Fasakh was granted to the first wife.
Principle: The wife's right after polygyny: fasakh because a husband with more than one wife does not treat her justly (Act 303 s.52(1)(h)(vi) and the equivalent state provisions).
Source: Nora Abdul Hak, (2008) 16 IIUMLJ 141
Joan Mary Sulaiman v Sulaiman bin Haji MusaCitation: (1993) 10 JH 86
Court & year: Syariah Court (state: to be verified), 1993
Facts: The first wife applied for fasakh because the husband had not paid maintenance for more than a year without valid reason, and had not kept to the rotation of nights between the wives.
Issue: Had the husband neglected maintenance and failed to be just?
Decision: Fasakh was granted.
Principle: Failure in maintenance and the rotation of nights is a failure of justice in polygyny; it is a ground for fasakh under s.52(1).
Source: Nora Abdul Hak, (2008) 16 IIUMLJ 141

10Polygyny without permission and confirmation of marriages abroad

Contracting a polygynous marriage without court permission is an offence (Act 303 s.123; Selangor s.124), but a marriage valid according to Hukum Syarak can still be confirmed and registered. See Unofficial marriage and Cross-border marriage.

Pendakwa Syarie Selangor lwn Bung Moktar Radin (the Bung Moktar case)Citation: Not reported in a law journal; press reports (official case title: to be verified)
Court & year: Gombak Timur Syariah Subordinate Court, Selangor; sentence 19 May 2010
Facts: The Member of Parliament for Kinabatangan married a second wife at a house in Taman Melati, Gombak on 16 December 2009 without court permission. He pleaded guilty on 20 April 2010 under s.124 of the Islamic Family Law (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003. The couple were also charged under s.40(2) for marrying without the Registrar's permission.
Issue: The appropriate sentence for polygyny without permission by a public figure.
Decision: Imprisonment of one month under s.124. The maximum fine of RM1,000 under s.40(2) was imposed on the husband and the new wife; the five witnesses to the contract were also fined RM1,000 each.
Principle: The offence of polygyny without permission (s.124 Selangor). The judge stressed that the defence had not shown the marriage to be "just and necessary", stated that a fine of RM1,000 was no longer a deterrent, and proposed heavier penalties.
Source: The Edge Malaysia (2010)
Note: Reports that the Shah Alam Syariah High Court later replaced the prison sentence with a fine of RM1,000 have not yet been checked against a primary source for this page (to be verified).
Siti Aishah bt Awang v Mohd Johari bin AbdullahCitation: [2013] 4 ShLR 77
Court & year: Terengganu Syariah Court (level: to be verified), 2013
Facts: The couple married in Sungai Golok, Narathiwat, Thailand, and held a marriage certificate from the Narathiwat Provincial Islamic Religious Council. The bride's father appointed the officiant as his agent (wakalah).
Issue: Did the marriage abroad meet all the pillars and conditions of a valid marriage according to Hukum Syarak and Malaysian law?
Decision: The marriage was declared valid under the Islamic Family Law Enactment 1985 (Terengganu).
Principle: Confirmation of a marriage abroad: the court examines the words of the contract (time, date, place), the wali or the wali's agency, and the eligibility of both parties (s.8 of the Enactment 1985). This is the same route used to register a polygynous marriage contracted abroad.
Source: Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh et al., Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024), UUM
Note: The source does not state whether this marriage was polygynous. The case is included because it shows the test for confirming a cross-border marriage.

11Comparison: Singapore

Two Appeal Board decisions discussed alongside Malaysian cases in the IIUM Law Journal. See Singapore.

Re Salleh bin SuatiCitation: [1990] 2 MLJ xxix
Court & year: Appeal Board, Syariah Court of Singapore, 1990
Facts: The polygyny application was refused because the applicant could not support two wives and had neglected his existing wife to the point of causing her emotional distress. On appeal, he argued that his relationship with the intended wife was already very close and he wanted to make it lawful.
Issue: Does the wish to make a relationship lawful override evidence of injustice?
Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Principle: The ability to fulfil material responsibilities and to be just must be proven. A close relationship with the intended wife is not a strong reason.
Source: Nora Abdul Hak, (2008) 16 IIUMLJ 141
Ayisha Begum v Hajiah MaideenCitation: [1988] 3 MLJ xlv
Court & year: Syariah Appeal Board, 1988 (Singapore according to the source's arrangement; to be verified)
Facts: The source quotes only the principle decided; the facts are not described.
Issue: What test is used to determine whether the husband is able to provide and to be just?
Decision: The Board ruled that the test is objective.
Principle: The condition of justice: the standard of equal treatment is what a reasonable Muslim would consider equal, not the husband's own view.
Source: Nora Abdul Hak, (2008) 16 IIUMLJ 141
Note: The facts and the successful party are not stated in the source (to be verified).

12Principles that can be drawn

  • The burden of proof is on the husband for each condition (Aishah, Rajamah, Shazril Imran).
  • The conditions are read together: failing just one is enough to refuse the application (Aishah, Zambri).
  • "Avoiding sin" alone is not sufficient for the just or necessary condition if the wife has no deficiency (Mohd. Asrol, Shazril Imran; compare Syed Zulhusmi, who also put forward the ground of having children and was approved).
  • Finances are assessed on proven net figures (Ismail bin Bahari, Azhar, Ridzuan, Ruzaini).
  • Justice means what is within one's power to carry out, namely maintenance, the rotation of nights and drawing lots for travel, not feelings (Maulidah). The test is objective (Ayisha Begum).
  • Past record is evidence: a husband who neglects his existing family will find it hard to prove that he will be just (Azhar, Mohd Rozaiman, Re Salleh).
  • The wife must be heard; permission granted without a hearing can be set aside (Ramona Juita).
  • The court may approve with a maintenance order to protect the wife's standard of living (Shariff bin Jamaludin).
  • After polygyny, injustice is a ground for fasakh (Mohd Alwi, Joan Mary).
For husbands: prepare financial evidence (net payslips, commitments, housing and maintenance plans) and an honest "just or necessary" reason. For wives: attend the hearing and give evidence about the maintenance and time you are given. The court assesses facts, not promises.

Sumber & rujukan

Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27, UUM — Anis Shuhaiza Md Salleh, Najah Inani Abdul Jalil, Nor Ashikin Md Nasir & Syahmi Awang, Islamic family law on polygamous marriage in Malaysia: Between roses and thorns (2024) — https://repo.uum.edu.my/id/eprint/32071/1/JPS%2027%202024%2025-49.pdfIIUM Law Journal 16(1) — Nora Abdul Hak, Just and Equal Treatment in Polygamous Marriage: The Practice in the Shariah Courts in Malaysia (2008) — https://journals.iium.edu.my/iiumlj/index.php/iiumlj/article/download/48/47The Edge Malaysia — Bung Moktar gets one month's jail for marrying without consent (2010) — https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/update-bung-moktar-gets-one-months-jail-marrying-without-consentIslamic Family Law (Kedah Darul Aman) Enactment 2008 s.23(5) — as cited in Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 27 (2024)Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984 [Act 303] s.23, s.52(1)(h)(vi), s.123Islamic Family Law (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 s.23, s.40(2), s.124

Baca seterusnya

Polygyny in Malaysia →Fiqh of polygyny →Nikah siri & misyar →Cross-border →Talaq →Singapore →Marriage abroad & registration →

Comments or feedback

Dibaca oleh pentadbir MYPolygyny dan tidak diterbitkan. Jangan sertakan maklumat peribadi yang sensitif. Notis privasi.

About Us · Ask · Site Map · Privacy · Editorial policy · Updated: 5 Oct 2026 · Disclaimer