Misinformation Clouds Understanding of Bangladesh’s Polygamy Laws

Recent media coverage concerning a Bangladesh High Court decision has sparked widespread confusion and outrage across social media platforms. Reports suggesting that the court ruled “wife’s consent not required” for polygamous marriages have circulated widely, prompting concerns about women’s rights being rolled back. However, a closer examination reveals a significant gap between what the court actually decided and how it has been portrayed in headlines.

The recent High Court judgment did not establish new legal precedent, nor did it dilute existing protections for women. Rather, it simply reaffirmed the longstanding provisions of Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance of 1961, which has regulated polygamy in Bangladesh for over six decades.

Legal experts familiar with the case note that the court merely dismissed a writ petition that sought either to strike down Section 6 entirely or to read into it a mandatory consent requirement from the existing wife. The court declined to do either, maintaining the law as it has stood for decades.

What many reports failed to explain is the actual regulatory framework that Section 6 establishes. Far from giving men unrestricted freedom to remarry, the law imposes significant procedural barriers to polygamy. A married Muslim man who wishes to take another wife must first apply in writing to an Arbitration Council, providing his justification for the proposed marriage.

This council, led by a union parishad chairman and including representatives nominated by both the husband and the existing wife, is tasked with determining whether the proposed second marriage is “necessary” and “just.” The existing wife must be notified and has the right to be heard in this process.

The consequences for bypassing these requirements are substantial. A second marriage contracted without the Arbitration Council’s permission cannot be legally registered. Additionally, the entire dower (denmohor) to the first wife becomes immediately payable, and the husband faces potential criminal penalties.

“The judgment was never about sidelining women,” explains Barrister Mariha Khan, an advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. “It was about reaffirming where statutory authority lies. The Arbitration Council is the decision-making body.”

What’s particularly troubling about the selective reporting is how it obscured important legal protections available to Bangladeshi women. For instance, the Nikah Nama (Muslim marriage contract) can include enforceable conditions, such as restrictions on polygamy or reserving the right to divorce if the husband remarries. Courts regularly uphold these clauses, providing concrete protection for women who include them in their marriage contracts.

The incomplete reporting creates a dangerous information vacuum. By focusing exclusively on the absence of a consent requirement while omitting the procedural safeguards that do exist, media coverage has painted a misleading picture of women’s legal position. This pattern of selective amplification undermines trust in institutions and creates panic without offering women accurate information about their legal rights and protections.

Critics acknowledge that Section 6 is not without flaws. The language remains somewhat vague, Arbitration Councils operate inconsistently across different regions, and enforcement mechanisms sometimes fall short. These legitimate concerns deserve thoughtful discussion and potential reform.

However, meaningful critique and reform must be grounded in an accurate understanding of the current legal framework. By reducing complex legal judgments to provocative soundbites, some media outlets have replaced understanding with alarm, making it harder for women to identify and utilize the protections that do exist within the law.

The controversy highlights a broader issue within legal reporting: the tendency to prioritize sensationalism over accuracy. When reporting on matters that directly impact vulnerable groups, precise and contextualized information is not merely an academic concern but an essential public service.

For Bangladeshi women navigating the complexities of family law, protection comes not from outrage triggered by half-truths, but from full information, honest reporting, and clear understanding of both the strengths and limitations of existing legal frameworks.