The Jharkhand High Court has held that after divorce and the wife's subsequent marriage with another man, the husband's refusal to re-marry does not amount to a cognizable offence or a legal wrong under Muslim personal law or general criminal law. The Court observed that “the husband's refusal does not amount to a cognizable offence or a legal wrong under Muslim personal law or the general criminal law.”

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, who apprehended arrest in connection with Dhanwar (Ghorthamba O.P.) P.S. Case No. 314 of 2025 arising out of Complaint Case No. 684 of 2025. The FIR was registered under Sections 127(1), 115(2), 85, 352, 74, 351(2) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

The petitioner, who was the husband, submitted that an earlier case, Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 405 of 2020, had been filed on a similar set of allegations and had subsequently been compromised on certain terms and conditions. It was further submitted that the parties had since divorced and that the informant had solemnised marriage with another man. The petitioner also submitted that the allegations included his refusal to re-marry.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present complaint was based on the same allegations which had earlier resulted in Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 405 of 2020 and which had been compromised. It was further submitted that the divorce had taken place and the informant had subsequently married another man.

The State and counsel for the informant opposed the bail application, submitting that there were allegations that the petitioner had refused to re-marry.

The Court noted that the informant had earlier lodged Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 405 of 2020, in which a compromise had taken place. It further noted that the subsequent complaint was based on the same set of allegations and had been converted into an FIR. The Court also noted that the parties had divorced and that the informant had already solemnised marriage with another man. It held:

“If the husband refuses, the wife does not have a basis to file a fresh criminal case or the FIR, because the husband's refusal does not amount to a cognizable offence or a legal wrong under Muslim personal law or the general criminal law.”

The Court further observed that the documents did not identify any provision under which the wife could compel re-marriage or file a fresh suit based solely on the husband's refusal after halala was completed.

In view of these circumstances, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks. In the event of surrender or arrest, he was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Cause Title: Imran Hussain v. State of Jharkhand

Case Number: A.B.A. No. 4909 of 2026

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Prajapati, Advocate.

For the State: Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate.

For the Informant: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order