The petitioner’s first wife alleged that after their marriage in December 2002, her husband subjected her to abuse for not bearing a child and later married another woman in May 2022
NEW DELHI — A Muslim man who contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of the first cannot be prosecuted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with bigamy, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled. The court ruling came on a petition filed by a husband, who was accused of bigamy by his wife.
However, the court clarified that the trial will proceed on other charges, including cruelty, wrongful confinement, assault, and criminal intimidation, punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 323, and 506 (Part II) of the IPC.
A bench led by Justice B P Sharma observed that Section 494 applies only when the second marriage is void due to the subsistence of the first marriage.
Justice Sharma reasoned that Section 494, IPC (now replaced by Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) is subject to personal law.
“In the present case, the parties are governed by Muslim Personal Law, which permits a man to have more than one wife. Therefore, the second marriage is not void merely because the first marriage continues,” the court said.
The case stems from a complaint filed by the petitioner’s first wife. She alleged that after their marriage in December 2002, her husband subjected her to abuse for not bearing a child and later married another woman in May 2022. She also claimed that she was pressured to seek ‘khula’ (divorce initiated by the wife).
The husband’s counsel argued that Section 494 IPC does not apply to Muslims, as their personal law permits up to four wives at one given time. He relied on the Kerala High Court’s judgment in Venugopal vs. Union of India (2015), which held that Section 494 would apply only if a Muslim man marries beyond the permitted limit of four wives.
Opposing the plea, the wife’s counsel contended that Muslim Personal Law would not automatically apply unless a declaration is made under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. Therefore, he argued, the husband could not claim entitlement to multiple marriages.
The high court, however, observed that Section 494 IPC must be interpreted in conjunction with the personal law governing the parties. It also relied on Supreme Court rulings, including Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India (1995) and Khursheed Ahmad Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015), which recognise that Muslim Personal Law permits polygamy.
The court concluded that contracting a second marriage, even if the wife’s allegations are accepted at face value, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
