Second Marriage Not ‘Void’ Under Personal Law and Section 494 IPC: MP High Court

The High Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh has quashed the chargees of 'Bigamy' against a Muslim Man who married second time however, the court held that the prosecussion may proceed with the allegations of cruelty and criminal intimidation.

Background: The matter is stemmed from a criminal complaint lodged by the First Wife of the Petitioner Mrs Nujahat who got married to the the Petitioner Arif in the month of Dec 2002, and for nearly two decades, no formal complaint were recorded however, in 2022 the relationship further coured, following which the Petitioner married his now second wife Heena.

The defacto-compaliant (the first wife) complainned that the alleged that the petitioner subjected her to assault and defacation due to her inability to hear a child and subsequenctl, issued death threat to coerce her into a "khula" (divorce by mutual consent, mostly by demanded mostly by muslim women).

On the strength of these allegations, an FIR was registered at the Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur, for offences including cruelty (Section 498-A), bigamy (Section 494), wrongful confinement (Section 342), hurt (Section 323), and criminal intimidation (Section 506 Part-II) of BNS.

The petitioner then challenged these framing of these charges, before the Madhya Pradesh and specifically contending that as a Muslim male governed by personal law, the charge of bigamy was legally unsustainable.

The Court emphasized that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) must be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law when allegations do not satisfy the statutory ingredients of a crime.

When it comes to the 'Legality of Plurality of Marriages under Muslim Law' the High Court observed that Section 494 IPC to a Muslim male is not applicable as 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.

The Court relied on precedents set by the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India to affirm that plurality of marriages is a recognized feature of Muslim law.

The High Court further held that for a bigamy charge to be attracted, the second marriage must be "void by reason of the subsistence of the earlier marriage" and a charge against Muslim man for second marriage is Not ‘Void’ Under Personal Law and Section 494 IPC.

While the Hihg Court quashed the bigamy charge, the Court refused to interfere with the charges under Sections 498-A, 342, 323, and 506 Part-II of the IPC and directed the trial to proceed on allegations of cruelty and criminal intimidation.

Coram: Justice B. P Sharma.