Author :Beradar Akash

Edited By: Shadrack Chai

ABSTRACT

Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India is a landmark case in the history of India. This case deals with a rather complicated issue of bigamy about apostasy. In this case, a Hindu man remarried under Islam without divorcing his first Hindu wife. Thus, this act of the husband doesn’t meet the provision of Monogamy under Hindu law. The Supreme Court observed whether such a conversion of a man is bona fide and discussed the Fundamental question of UCC under the provision of Article 44 of the Indian constitution, the apex court further stated that a man converting himself by embracing Islamic religion to commit bigamy would render it invalid and it further highlights the need of uniform civil code implementation. Hence in the present case, the Supreme Court highlighted that women’s rights were violated and one cannot use religion as a reason for exploitation. Thus, this Article aims to provide facts, issues, and judgment of the Supreme Court with further observation on an in-depth analysis of this case concerning Bigamy with the provisions of law.

Keywords: Religious conversions, Bigamy, UCC, Hindu Marriage Act, Sec 494 of IPC

CASE DETAILS

i)            Judgement Cause Title / Case Name	Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & … vs Union of India & Ors 1995
ii)            Case Number	Writ Petition No. 1079 of 1989
iii)            Judgement Date	May 10, 1995
iv)            Court	Supreme Court of India
v)            Quorum / Constitution of Bench	Kuldip Singh, R.M Sahai
vi)            Author / Name of Judges	Kuldip Singh
vii)            Citation	1995 AIR 1531, 1995 SCC (3)635
viii)            Legal Provisions Involved	·         Article 44 of the Indian Constitution (DPSP) ·         Indian Penal Code of 1860, Sec 494& 495 ·         Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 it states that a person living in a marriage and remarrying someone is an illegal act. The present case discusses mainly the issues of bigamy and religious conversions in the operation of personal laws. Countries like India have allowed for different religious practices but issues arise when one person converts his religion just for the sake of avoiding harsh and stricter personal laws. Hence this issue was scrutinised by the apex court in the present case. Thus, this case highlights the legal effectiveness of any conversion for a second marriage according to the constitution of India and the controversy UCC brings into the picture.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

This case primarily consists of 4 petitions that were filed under Article 32 of the Indian constitution. Smt Sarla was a petitioner 1 of “KALYANI” a registered society an organization that was working for the welfare of women and needy families. One day the petitioner was shocked to learn the truth about her husband had solemnized a second marriage with a Muslim lady. Thus, the marriage was solemnized after they converted themselves and adopted the Islamic religion. Later a mandamus writ petition was sought to ban the act of practicing the legislation that allows any Hindu man to convert himself and live in a bigamous marriage

Factual Background of the Case

The petitioners were all Hindu women whose husbands were turned into Muslims for the sake of remarriage without divorcing the first lawful wives and left no legal redress. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that the conversion is not lawful and bona fide in nature and evades the provisions of 494 of IPC 1860, which states bigamy marriages are void in nature and shall be punishable and read with sec 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

Whether any husband marries to Hindu woman under Hindu law, can he solemnize the second marriage by accepting the Islamic religion?

Whether the first marriage without dissolution under the law can be valid?

Whether the husband will be liable for his act of bigamy under sec 494 of IPC 1860?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the conversion of the husband proves that his purpose for conversion was to solemnize the marriage as polygamy is allowed in the Islamic religion

The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the act of the respondent was mala fide in nature, as it was very clear that he converted himself to Islam because he could escape the liability of being punished under sec 494 of IPC 1860

The counsel argued that freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Indian constitution does not extend to getting converted and committing the offense of bigamy which is punishable under the Hindu personal law. Non-implementation of UCC under Article 44 of the Indian constitution is leading to discrimination of women from one religion by another, hence it’s a clear violation of Article 14.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the respondent contended that in this case Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and IPC, 1860 aren’t applicable, because Islam allows polygamy, meanwhile, he can marry four wives even in a case where the first marriage is subsisting.

The counsel further argued that under Islamic personal law, if any of the spouses does not accept the same religion then it results in the dissolution of the marriage.

The counsel for the respondent also stated that any intervention with personal laws such as marriages would tend to the violation of the freedom of religion. And UCC is just a directive principle that is not enforceable in a court of law.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 44 of the Indian constitution

“The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. However, Article 37 makes it clear that shall not be enforceable before the courts

Articles 25& 26 of the Indian constitution

“Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion”

“Freedom to manage religious affairs”

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860

“Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceive” Here it means whoever, a husband or wife is living and re-marring some other person such marriage would be void in nature and shall be punishable here under

Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

“Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if, at the date of such marriage, either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), shall apply accordingly.”

Section 494 of IPC, 1860

“Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void because of it taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

 JUDGEMENT

This case judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble Justice Kuldeep Singh and Hon’ble Justice R.M. Sahai it was held that “marriages that are celebrated in one personal law cannot be dissolved by the application of other religious personal laws” thus conversion by any Hindu spouses doesn’t put the first marriage to an end. Hindu husbands married under the Hindu Personal law, by accepting Islam cannot solemnize the second marriage. Thus, the second marriage would be illegal and the first marriage can be only dissolved through a decree of divorce under the governing act.

Therefore, the second marriage of the respondent would be in violation of sec 494 of IPC and it would be void, and illegal shall be punishable under the said provision as it fills the required grounds under sec 494 of IPC 1860

RATIO DECIDENDI

The solemnizing the marriage by way of conversion doesn’t annul the marriage and if the subsequent marriage is bigamous then he or she would be guilty under sec 494 of the penal code. The first marriage would remain legal and binding unless the decree of divorce has been granted by the court, also the court pointed out that India needs a UCC to eliminate the conflicts between personal laws.

 

OBITER DICTA

Marriage is one of the primary social contracts, it is involved with the public interest and creates certain expectations which bind the spouses with obligations

A conversion of a Hindu man to Islam for practicing polygamy is permitted in Islam but not in Hindu law. Conversion to another religion doesn’t put the Hindu marriage to an end, instead, it must have dissolved under the Hindu law. The marriage dissolution must adhere to the original personal laws of the parties

The UCC implementation under the provision of Article 44 of the Indian constitution can promote integrity & uniformity in personal law.

Justice R.M. Sahai dissented here by stating that, the implementation of UCC could create religious dissatisfaction and it would be arbitrary and unconstitutional because the constitution protects the freedom of religion. Thus, he recommended new legislation on the ‘Conversion of Religion Act’ to prevent the misuse of religion and govern marriages for conversion.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case was considered a landmark judgment that upheld women’s rights and prevented the misuse of personal laws. The court held the second marriage to be void under Hindu law. Marriage is a sacrament and a universal social institution. A man converting himself with a mala fide intention is considered to be a colourable conversion, one cannot use the mode of religion for his benefit or commit bigamous marriages without divorcing his first legal spouse.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

The apex court referred many cases in the present case to support its judgment as follows

Robasa Khanum & Anr vs. Khodadad Irani & Ors AIR 1946 BOMBAY 272

In this case, it was held that the conduct of any spouse who converts to a Muslim religion should be judged based on the rule of justice, equity, and good conscience. Thus, the court shall act and decide on this basis.

Attorney General of Ceylon vs. Reid; (1965 A. C. 812)

This case outlines the legal issues while applying penal laws like bigamy in the context of changing personal laws.

Mohd. Ahmed Khan Vs. Shah Bano Begum: (1985 (3) S.C.C. 559) [reported in 1985 SCC 945]

This case provided a significant judgment, where it discussed the need and enactment of UCC in India to get rid of discrimination in particular areas of various personal laws.

Important Statutes Referred

India Penal Code, 1860: Sec 494 & 495

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Sec 17

Indian Constitution: Articles 14, 25 & 44

REFERENCES

Robasa Khanum & Anr vs. Khodadad Irani & Ors AIR 1946 BOM 272

Attorney General of Ceylon vs. Reid (1965) AC 812

Mohd. Ahmed Khan V Shah Bano Begum (1985) 3 S.C.C. 559

Kuldip Singh and RM Sahai, “Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.” https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/10742.pdf

“Article 44: Uniform Civil Code for the Citizens – Constitution of India” (Constitution of India, July 4, 2023) https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-44-uniform-civil-code-for-the-citizens/

Geeks for Geeks, “IPC Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code” (Geeks for Geeks, May 10, 2024) https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/section-420-of-the-indian-penal-code/

Smt Sarla Mudgal, &Ors. V Union of India AIR (1955) SC 531Indian Kanoon

“IPC Section 494 – Marrying Again during Lifetime of Husband or Wife – Punishment and Bail” (lawrato.com) https://lawrato.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-494