A second marriage entered into by a Muslim man while his first marriage continues cannot automatically be treated as bigamy, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled, underscoring that personal law governs such situations.
The Court clarified that the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code—now replaced by Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—does not apply in the same way where personal law permits multiple marriages. Under Muslim personal law, a Muslim male is allowed to have more than one wife, subject to conditions recognised by that law. Because of this, the Court concluded that the essential ingredients of the criminal offence were not met.
The ruling came while examining a challenge filed by a man against criminal charges framed after his wife accused him of cruelty, harassment, assault, and entering into a second marriage. She claimed that her husband’s decision to remarry stemmed from her inability to bear a child and further alleged threats, coercion for mutual divorce, and other acts of intimidation.
Based on her complaint, a criminal case was registered in 2022. A trial court later framed charges including cruelty, bigamy, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation. The man approached the High Court, arguing that the allegation of bigamy was legally unsustainable since Muslim personal law permits polygamy. He also maintained that the remaining accusations were unfounded and pointed out that a family court had annulled his first marriage following divorce pronouncements made in 2022.
The High Court agreed in part, observing that a second marriage by a Muslim male is not void merely because the first marriage is still subsisting. Since the alleged second marriage did not satisfy the legal requirement of being void—a key element for establishing bigamy—the Court held that prosecuting him for that offence would amount to misuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the bigamy charge was set aside.
However, the Court declined to interfere with the remaining accusations. It noted that the allegations relating to cruelty, assault, wrongful confinement, and intimidation were supported by material collected during the investigation and required examination during trial. The proceedings on those counts will therefore continue before the trial court.
