The petitioner argued before the Madhya Pradesh High Court that his wife’s allegations of assault and criminal intimidation were vague. (Image generated using AI)Madhya Pradesh High Court news: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that a Muslim man’s second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage does not, by itself, constitute the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Justice B P Sharma made the observation while partly allowing a plea seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of a complaint lodged by the petitioner’s first wife. Justice B P Sharma noted that other allegations against the husband, relating to cruelty, assault, and criminal intimidation, were supported by material collected during the investigation.“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 in contracting a second marriage would not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 494 (marrying again during lifetime of husband/wife),” the Madhya Pradesh High Court said in its order dated March 18.Also Read | Talaq takes effect when pronounced, court confirmation is only formal: Allahabad HC in maintenance caseHowever, it noted that the other allegations against the husband, relating to cruelty, assault, and criminal intimidation, were supported by material collected during the probe.Assault, intimidation allegationsIn this case, the wife had alleged that her husband subjected her to assault and criminal intimidation over several years, allegedly due to her inability to bear a child. She further alleged that the petitioner contracted a second marriage in May 2022 and asked her to consent to a divorce.On the basis of her complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the man for the offences punishable under IPC sections 498-A (husband or his relative subjecting a woman to cruelty), 494, 342 (wrongful confinement), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 Part-II (criminal intimidation: threat to cause death/grievous hurt), and an investigation was launched.Also Read | ‘Battle of Mahabharata’: Supreme Court orders man to pay Rs 5 crore alimony to estranged wifeSubsequently, the additional sessions judge, Jabalpur, framed charges against the man under the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by this, the man approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court.Story continues below this adThe petitioner argued that the allegations were vague and pointed out that no complaint had been made during the nearly two-decade-long marriage. He also contended that as a Muslim, his second marriage was valid under personal law and therefore could not attract the offence of bigamy.Court refers to Muslim Personal LawThe Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the applicability of IPC Section 494 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,” the court observed.It remarked that the parties are governed by Muslim Personal Law, therefore, even if the allegations of the complainant are accepted at their face value, the act of the petitioner in contracting a second marriage would not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 494.Also Read | Supreme Court says ‘subsequent marriage’ outweighs crime, quashes POCSO case against man for eloping with minor“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 Madhya Pradesh High Court added.Story continues below this adThus, the court held that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 494 cannot be sustained in law.At the same time, the Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the allegations relating to cruelty, assault, and criminal intimidation were supported by material collected during the investigation and disclosed a prima facie case. It held that these issues involved disputed questions of fact that must be adjudicated during trial.Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd