Second Marriage Not Bigamy For Muslim Man: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes IPC 494 Charge

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a Muslim man’s second marriage during the subsistence of the first does not, by itself, attract the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, while allowing criminal proceedings for other alleged offences to continue against him.

The ruling came in a petition seeking quashing of charges framed by a trial court in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of cruelty, assault, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the petitioner’s first wife, who alleged that she was subjected to harassment and physical abuse during their marriage, which was solemnised in 2002. She further alleged that the petitioner contracted a second marriage in May 2022 and pressured her to agree to “Khula”, or mutual divorce.

Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 494, 342, 323 and 506 Part II of the IPC, following which charges were framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, and affirmed in revision.

Challenging these orders under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the petitioner argued that the allegations were “omnibus” and did not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. It was contended that there had been no complaint for nearly two decades of marriage and that the present case was a “counterblast” following the second marriage.

Senior Advocate Anil Khare, assisted by Advocate Harjas Singh Chhabra, appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Government Advocate Aatmaram Bain represented the State and Advocate Naveen Vaswani appeared for the complainant.

A central plank of the petitioner’s argument was that Section 494 IPC, which criminalises bigamy, was not applicable in light of Muslim Personal Law, which permits a Muslim man to have more than one wife. It was submitted that unless a fifth marriage is contracted, the offence would not be attracted.

The complainant, however, argued that in the absence of a formal declaration invoking the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, the petitioner could not claim its benefit and that the second marriage during the subsistence of the first constituted an offence.

Justice B. P. Sharma, after examining the record and the legal position, reiterated the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent powers, noting that such jurisdiction must be used sparingly and only where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence or amount to an abuse of process. The Court relied on established precedents to underline that disputed questions of fact are ordinarily not to be adjudicated at this stage.

On the issue of bigamy, the Court held that “for the offence under Section 494 IPC to be attracted, it is essential that the second marriage must be void by reason of the subsistence of the earlier marriage.” It observed that under Muslim Personal Law, polygamy is recognised and a Muslim male is permitted to have more than one wife, subject to conditions. Therefore, a second marriage in such circumstances cannot be treated as void solely because the first marriage subsists.

The Court concluded that “even if the allegations made by the complainant are taken at their face value, the act of the petitioner in contracting a second marriage would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC,” and that continuation of proceedings for this offence would amount to an abuse of process. Accordingly, the charge under Section 494 IPC was quashed.

However, the Court declined to interfere with the remaining charges, holding that the allegations and material on record prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 342 and 506 Part II IPC. It emphasised that these aspects require appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be adjudicated in a petition for quashing.

Partly allowing the petition, the Court clarified that its observations were limited to the present proceedings and would not affect the merits of the trial. The trial court was directed to independently assess the evidence and proceed in accordance with law.

Case Title: Mohd. Arif Ahmad Jahagir Khan v. The State of Madya Pradesh

Date of Order: March 18, 2026

Bench: Justice B. P. Sharma