Section 4. Punishment for pronouncing talaq
Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq referred to in section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
How courts have applied section 4
- Section 7(c) of the Act does not bar anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC; the non-obstante clause operates only within clauses (a) to (c).1
- The offence under Sections 3 and 4 can be committed only by a Muslim husband; a mother-in-law cannot be accused of pronouncing triple talaq.1
- Before granting bail, the competent court must hear the married Muslim woman complainant and be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for granting bail.1
- Courts have quashed FIRs and proceedings under Section 4 on the basis of amicable settlement or compromise in matrimonial disputes, even where the offences were non-compoundable.2,3,4,5,6,7
- Quashing at the registration stage rests on limited grounds, and disputed questions of fact are not fit for adjudication in inherent jurisdiction.8,9
- Bail may be granted in matrimonial disputes where mediation succeeded, where there was delay in FIR, or where the accused had no criminal antecedents, but denied where the petitioner had many antecedents or no case was registered.10,11,12,13,14
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly concern procedural relief in prosecutions under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which punishes a Muslim husband for pronouncing talaq referred to in Section 3 with imprisonment up to three years and a fine. Courts in these orders dealt with anticipatory or regular bail, quashing of FIRs and charge sheets, and related complaints, often in the context of matrimonial disputes that also involved other offences such as dowry prohibition and cruelty provisions.1,10,11,8,2,3,15,4,16,17,5,18,12,6,9,7,13,14
A recurring question was whether quashing of proceedings was available when parties had settled. Several High Courts quashed FIRs and proceedings on the basis of amicable settlements, compromises, or mediation, often after verifying that the complainant voluntarily agreed, and sometimes noting that the marriage was dissolved or that full settlement amounts were paid. However, one court declined to quash at the registration stage, holding that such relief rests on limited grounds when allegations are still being investigated. Another quashing application was declined because disputed questions of fact were involved, leaving the parties to seek bail.2,3,15,4,16,17,5,6,7,9,8
Regarding bail, the Supreme Court held that Section 7(c) of the Act does not bar anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, since the non-obstante clause operates only within clauses (a) to (c) and does not expressly exclude Section 438, unlike certain other statutes. The Court also held that the offence under Sections 3 and 4 can be committed only by a Muslim husband, so a mother-in-law could not be accused of pronouncing triple talaq, and that the competent court must hear the complainant before granting bail. In other orders, bail was granted in matrimonial disputes where mediation succeeded, where there was delay in lodging the FIR, where the accused was a relative (brother-in-law) or had no criminal antecedents, or where trial would take time. Bail was dismissed where the petitioner had many criminal antecedents or where no case was registered and apprehension of arrest was misplaced.1,10,11,13,12,14
Some orders were routine procedural matters, such as a direction for expeditious hearing of a pending case. The judgements show that the offence is often charged alongside dowry prohibition and penal provisions, and courts frequently considered compromise or settlement as a basis for quashing, even for non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes. Notably, one quashing order recorded the petitioner's regret for pronouncing triple talaq, which was unlawful under Section 3 of the Act.18,2,3,15,4,5,6,7,16
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 4
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…
AllowedOpenThe High Court allowed a second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNS 2023. The court held that as mediation proceedings concluded successfully and the applicant deposited the required sum, anticipatory bail was deemed appropriate.
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.
Show 6 more
CRL.M.C. 892/2026, decided 03.02.2026, High Court of Delhi, Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J: quashing of FIR No. 703/2024, P.S. New Usmanpur, Delhi — Sections 115(2)/351(3)/3(5) BNS 2023 and Section 4, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 — matrimonial dispute;
CRL.M.C. 9129/2025; Delhi High Court; decision 16.02.2026; Prateek Jalan, J.; quashing of FIR on settlement; Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 CrPC; FIR No. 168/2024 dated 01.05.2024; P.S. Jamia Nagar; Sections 498A/406/34 IPC (chargesheet 498A/406/323/506/34); Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961;
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)OpenAtif Faizan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., CRL.M.C. 5222/2026 (with CRL.M.A. 21923/2026), High Court of Delhi, Saurabh Banerjee J., decided 27.07.2026 — quashing of FIR No.75/2021 (PS Sarai Rohilla) under Section 4 MWPRM Act 2019 via Section 528 BNSS 2023 petition on mediation settlement dated 11.09.2025;
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.
DisposedOpen
Jharkhand High Court (Ranchi), B.A. No. 5253 of 2026, neutral id 2026:JHHC:22352, decided 28.07.2026 by Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary. Bail rejected at this stage; renewal permitted after examination of victim and her family members. Marafari P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026; matrimonial dispute; chargesheet filed;
DismissedOpenDelhi High Court (Saurabh Banerjee, J., 27.07.2026) allows CRL.M.C. 5163/2026 under Section 528 BNSS and quashes FIR No.74/2021, PS Sarai Rohilla, under Section 4 MWPRM Act 2019, on mutual mediation settlement (11.09.2025, Tis Hazari), Mubaratnama dated 17.12.2025 and payment of Rs.4,00,000/- full and final…
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)OpenKarnataka High Court (M. Nagaprasanna, J., 20.07.2026) disposed of CRL.P No. 5325 of 2024 under S.482 Cr.PC and quashed FIR in Crime No.79/2024 (Ss.504, 506, 34 IPC; S.4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act) pending before I Addl.
DisposedOpenBail — first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — offences punishable under Sections 85 and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (Crime No. 52/2026, P.S.
AllowedOpenPre-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…
DismissedOpen
Show 4 more
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.
DisposedOpenPetitioners, 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.
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.
DisposedOpen
Related subjects
- Dowry and Cruelty2,39,112
- Matrimonial and Divorce2,58,011
- Anticipatory Bail10,77,822
- Quashing and FIR4,33,347