Section 3. Talaq to be void and illegal
Any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal.
How courts have applied section 3
- Section 7(c) does not bar anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under the Act.1
- Only a Muslim husband who pronounces talaq can commit the offence under Sections 3 and 4; relatives cannot be accused of pronouncement.1
- Quashing of proceedings is often allowed where parties have amicably settled and the complainant does not wish to pursue the case.2,3,4,5,6
- Quashing is declined where there are disputed questions of fact or where the challenge is at the registration stage.7,8
- Pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where the applicant has cooperated with investigation or where the applicant is a relative rather than the husband.9,10
- Rejection of bail may be set aside as mechanical, with direction for an amicable settlement attempt through mediation.11
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly concern procedural relief in prosecutions under Section 3 (read with Section 4) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 — pre-arrest bail, quashing of FIRs/charge-sheets, and expeditious hearing — rather than the substantive interpretation of the provision itself. Courts have repeatedly granted or confirmed pre-arrest bail, often where the applicant was a relative of the husband rather than the pronouncing husband, or where a settlement was likely. One Supreme Court decision held that Section 7(c) does not bar anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under this Act, reasoning that Parliament did not expressly exclude Section 438, and that only a Muslim husband who pronounces talaq can commit the offence under Sections 3 and 4.1,12,7,2,3,4,8,5,6,13,14,9,11,10,15,16
Several High Courts have quashed proceedings where the parties had amicably settled their disputes, sometimes after a verified compromise or mediation settlement, and where the complainant did not wish to pursue the case. In one such quashing, the petitioner expressed regret for having pronounced triple talaq, acknowledging it was struck down by the Supreme Court and unlawful under Section 3. Conversely, quashing was declined where the court found disputed questions of fact that were unfit for inherent jurisdiction, or where the challenge was raised at the registration stage and did not meet the limited grounds for quashing. In one case, the court held that allegations against relatives who only failed to object to the husband's conduct did not support charges under the Act, confirming their pre-arrest bail.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Bail decisions often turned on factors such as delay in filing the FIR, the applicant's role, and the possibility of settlement. One High Court found a district court's rejection of pre-arrest bail mechanical and directed an amicable settlement attempt through mediation, with no coercive action meanwhile. Other courts granted bail noting the delay in institution of the FIR or the applicant's status as a relative. In an expeditious-hearing application, the court held that the right to speedy justice is fundamental, and directed expeditious disposal where the case was stuck at the appearance stage due to adjournments.11,12,13
Some proceedings were routine: quashing applications were disposed of with directions to consider bail applications within a specified time, or with interim protection continuing. In several matters, courts issued notice or stayed proceedings without deciding merits. One anticipatory bail petition was dismissed because no case had been registered and the petitioner's apprehension of arrest was misplaced.7,15,17,18,16,14
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
Anticipatory bail — Section 438 CrPC versus Section 7(c) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 — non-obstante clause — triple talaq offence committable only by Muslim husband — mother-in-law cannot be accused — hearing to married Muslim woman complainant mandatory before bail — statutory exclusion…
AllowedOpenSuhail v. State of U.P., CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16481 of 2026 (Allahabad High Court, Court No. 65, Krishan Pahal, J., May 14, 2026): bail allowed in Case Crime No. 205 of 2026, P.S.
Allahabad High Court, Nand Prabha Shukla, J.; APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 17218 of 2026, decided May 5, 2026; Sayeed Anjum v. State of U.P. and Another; quashing of charge sheet 11.03.2025 and cognizance order 22.04.2025 in Criminal Case No. 4137 of 2025 (CNR UPCD040050452025), Case Crime No.
Allahabad High Court; Section 528 BNSS; quashing; compromise; matrimonial dispute; settlement; 498A IPC; 323 IPC; 354 IPC; D.P. Act; Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019; Case Crime No. 0495 of 2019; Case No. 181 of 2024; charge sheet No. 285 of 2020; cognizance order 01.01.2024; P.S. Bhawanpur;
Quashing application under Section 528 BNSS; compromise dated 20.02.2026 between parties; charge-sheet under Sections 85, 115(2), 75(2) BNS, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019; Sessions Trial No.
Delhi High Court (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J) allowed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 seeking quashing of case FIR No.
Writ Petition (Criminal)Open
Show 6 more
Delhi High Court; W.P.(CRL) 2094/2026 & CRL.M.A. 21003/2026; Prateek Jalan, J.; decided 20.07.2026; FIR quashing under Article 226 at investigation stage; FIR No. 480/2025 PS Jamia Nagar; BNS 2023 Sections 85, 316(2), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5); Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 Sections 3 and 4;
Writ Petition (Criminal)OpenQuashing of FIR; Section 528 BNSS 2023; Sections 498A/406/34 IPC; Sections 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019; matrimonial dispute; mediation settlement dated 27.09.2025; settlement amount Rs.3,45,000/-; alimony and maintenance; Mubarat; dissolution of marriage by mutual consent;
Single-judge decision (Alok Mahra, J.), 03.06.2026 — Compounding and quashing on compromise. A criminal miscellaneous application sought setting aside of the chargesheet, summoning/cognizance order and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 943 of 2025 (State Vs.
DisposedOpenUttarakhand High Court (Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.) disposed of C-528 Application No. 455 of 2026 filed by Gulfsha, the complainant in FIR No. 0433 of 2021 (Police Station Kotwali, Jwalapur, District Haridwar), seeking expeditious hearing of Criminal Case No. 2393 of 2022 (Old No. 8088 of 2022), 'State vs.
DisposedOpenPre-arrest bail - Criminal Petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an unregistered crime of Disha Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam, alleged to involve offences under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on…
DismissedOpenPetitioners, mother-in-law and brothers-in-law of the complainant, sought pre-arrest bail in a case under Section 85/89 BNS and Sections 3/4 of the Muslim Women Act. The FIR alleged only that they failed to object to the husband's torture. Interim pre-arrest bail was made absolute.
DisposedOpen
Pre-arrest bail — Section 4, Muslim Women (Protection of Right of Marriage) Act, 2019 — alleged pronouncement of triple talaq — District Court's rejection of bail application held mechanical, passed without applying its mind to the object of the Act — relying on Rajendra Bhagat v.
DisposedOpenAnticipatory bail application under Sections 85/89 BNS 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 arising from alleged assault on the petitioner's wife causing miscarriage.
DisposedOpenMohammad Arman @ Mustki @ Mustkeem @ Arman and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Anf 3 Others
Outcome: DisposedAllahabad HC (Lucknow Bench), Crl. Misc. W.P. 4859 of 2026, decided 22.05.2026: petitioners sought benefit of Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51; 2026 INSC 115 for F.I.R. 0098/2026, P.S. Malihabad, Lucknow (Ss.
DisposedOpenAllahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Crl. Misc. Writ Petition 3887 of 2026, Meraj Ahmad v. State of U.P., order dated April 29, 2026 (Rajnish Kumar & Babita Rani, JJ.). Challenge to F.I.R. Case Crime No.0034 of 2026, P.S.
Application to quash a charge sheet under BNS, Dowry Prohibition Act and Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act provisions arising from matrimonial cruelty allegations. Court issued notice, allowed counter affidavits, and stayed proceedings against the applicant until the next listing.
Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Shree Prakash Singh, J., order dated 15.05.2026; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 1958 of 2026; Sajida @ Sajida Khatoon v. State of U.P.; quashing under s.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS; charge sheet dated 19.10.2024 (Charge Sheet No.01), Case Crime No.39/2024;
Show 4 more
Applicants sought quashing of chargesheet and cognizance order in a matrimonial dispute criminal case on the strength of a compromise between parties. The court did not quash;
Allahabad High Court; Section 528 BNSS / Section 528 B.N.S.S.; quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 03.09.2022; mediation referral to Mediation & Conciliation Centre (AHCMCC); interim protection - no coercive measures; conditional on deposit of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- legal expense to opposite party No. 2;
Shamshad v. State of U.P. | Allahabad High Court | Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10866 of 2026 | Order dt. 13.05.2026 (Rajeev Misra & Padam Narain Mishra, JJ.) | Challenge to quashing of FIR dt. 19.04.2026, Case Crime No.
Mohd. Meraj v. State of U.P.; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4285 of 2026; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; order dated 12.05.2026; Abdul Moin J. and Pramod Kumar Srivastava J.; quashing of FIR No. 0729/2025; Sections 64(1), 85, 110, 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS 2023;
Related subjects
- Dowry and Cruelty2,39,112
- Anticipatory Bail10,77,822
- Matrimonial and Divorce2,58,011