Second Marriage By Muslim Man Not Bigamy Under IPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Under Muslim Personal Law, a Muslim male is permitted to have more than one wife at a time.
Justice B. P. Sharma, Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a second marriage contracted by a Muslim male during the subsistence of the first marriage does not attract the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner had sought quashment of orders passed by the courts below, including the order framing charges against him for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 342, 323 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
A Bench of Justice B. P. Sharma held, “A second marriage contracted by a Muslim male during the lifetime of his first wife is not treated as void merely on the ground that the first marriage is still subsisting. In view of this legal position, the essential ingredient of Section 494 of IPC, namely that the subsequent marriage must be void on account of the subsistence of the first marriage is not fulfilled in the present case.”
Senior Advocate Anil Khare appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Aatmaram Bain appeared for the Respondent.
A petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The case arose from a complaint filed by his first wife, who alleged that their marriage was marked by cruelty, assault and threats, particularly after she was unable to bear a child. She further alleged that the petitioner threatened to kill her by administering poison and instigated her to commit suicide. It was also alleged that the petitioner contracted a second marriage on and pressured her to give “Khula”.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations were omnibus and made after nearly two decades of marriage, only after the second marriage. It was submitted that no ingredients of Section 498-A IPC were disclosed. With respect to the offence under Section 494 IPC, it was contended that the petitioner, being governed by Muslim Personal Law, is permitted to have more than one wife, and therefore the second marriage would not constitute bigamy.
Opposing the plea, the State and the complainant argued that the material collected during investigation prima facie disclosed the commission of offences and that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS, which are limited in scope.
The Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
On the question of bigamy, the Court held, "In the present case, the parties are governed by Muslim Personal Law which permits a Muslim male to have more than one wife. Thus, even if the allegations of the complainant are accepted at their face value, the act of the petitioner (Muslim man) in contracting a second marriage would not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 494 of IPC and continuation of the prosecution for the said offence would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court."
Referring to precedents including Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India and Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P., the Court observed that a second marriage by a Muslim male is not void merely because the first marriage is subsisting. It added, "The applicability of Section 494 IPC is subject to the personal law governing the parties. Under Muslim Personal Law, a Muslim male is permitted to have more than one wife at a time, subject to the conditions recognized by the personal law."
Consequently, the essential ingredient of Section 494 IPC was held to be absent, and continuation of proceedings for that offence was found to be unsustainable in law.
At the same time, the Court found that, "The allegations and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclose the commission of those offences and therefore they are required to be examined by the trial Court in accordance with law.”
Accordingly, the petition was partly allowed and disposed of. The proceedings under Section 494 IPC were quashed, while the trial for the remaining offences was permitted to continue.
Cause Title: Mohd. Arif Ahmad Jahagir Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [2026:MPHC-JBP:22473]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anil Khare, Advocate Harjas Singh Chhabra
Respondent: Advocates Aatmaram Bain, Naveen Vaswan
