The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a Muslim man and his second wife in a case alleging bigamy, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the basic legal requirements of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice N. Tukaramji delivered the order on August 14, 2026, in A.B. and Another v. State of Telangana and Another. The Court found that the material relied upon by the prosecution prima facie indicated that the first marriage had already come to an end under the law applicable to the parties before the alleged second marriage.
Background of the Case
The case involved first petitioner and his first wife, whose marriage took place in 2009 under Muslim rites. According to the complaint, his first wife accused her husband and his mother of harassing her over dowry demands and blaming her for not having children. This led to an FIR in 2015 under Sections 498-A and 420 read with 34 IPC, along with charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Separately, it was alleged that the first petitioner married again on May 24, 2015, while his first marriage was still subsisting. Based on this, police registered a case under Section 494 IPC, the provision dealing with bigamy, and eventually filed a charge sheet. The first petitioner and the woman alleged to be his second wife then approached the High Court, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Their counsel told the court that the first marriage had already been dissolved under Muslim Personal Law before the second marriage happened, so there was no valid earlier marriage left to violate. It was also argued that even if the marriage had continued, Muslim Personal Law permits a man to have more than one wife, so the second marriage could not automatically be treated as void.
Justice Tukaramji examined the essential ingredients required to prove bigamy under Section 494 IPC - namely that the accused must have a living spouse from a valid, subsisting marriage, and that the second marriage must be void specifically because of that subsistence.
Referring to a 2026 ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on a similar issue, Justice Tukaramji noted that the court there had held that a second marriage by a Muslim male is ‘not treated as void merely because the first marriage continues to subsist.
The court also distinguished the case from the Supreme Court's Sarla Mudgal ruling, pointing out that judgment dealt with a Hindu man converting to Islam to remarry, a very different factual situation. It further relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Khursheed Ahmad Khan, which had acknowledged that Muslim Personal Law allows multiple marriages, even while noting that the State can still regulate such practices through statute.
The bench concluded that the prosecution's own material suggested the first marriage had already ended before the second one took place, and that even otherwise, the second marriage could not be called void under the applicable personal law.
The Court held that the essential legal ingredients of the alleged offence were absent and that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against both petitioners in C.C. No. 8380 of 2021, pending before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Case Title: A.B. and Another v. State of Telangana and Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 7542 of 2021
Judge: Justice N. Tukaramji
Decision Date: August 14, 2026
