The Sarla Mudgal case (“Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.”) is a key landmark decision in Indian family law. This case addressed critical issues like apostasy i.e changing one’s religion, and bigamy under “section 494 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC)”, offering clarity on what makes a marriage “void” under Section 494 of IPC. It also played an important role in discussions about the need for a Uniform Civil Code in India.
Facts
The facts of this case revolve around the complex issue of bigamy, arising from the consolidation of four distinct petitions:
- First Petition:
The first petition was filed by two petitioners. Petitioner 1, the president of a registered society named “KALYANI”, which supports distressed women, and Petitioner 2, Meena Mathur, the legally wedded wife of Jitendra Mathur. In early 1988, Meena discovered that her husband had entered into a second marriage with Sunita Narula (later known as Fathima) after both converted to Islam. Meena alleged that her husband's conversion to Islam was solely to evade Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes bigamy, and to legitimize his second marriage. - Second Petition:
Interestingly, the second petition was filed by Sunita (Fathima), the woman Jitendra Mathur married after converting to Islam. She argued that after her conversion to Islam and marriage to Jitendra, she bore him a son. However, she claimed that Jitendra later reconverted to Hinduism on April 28, 1988, under the influence of his first wife, Meena. He resumed his relationship with Meena and their three children, leaving Sunita without financial support or legal protection. Sunita contended that, as a Muslim woman, she was neither protected under personal law nor eligible for maintenance. - Third Petition:
This petition was filed by Geeta, who was married to Pradeep. Geeta alleged that her husband subjected her to verbal abuse and physical violence, including a severe beating that fractured her jaw. She further claimed that Pradeep converted to Islam solely to marry another woman, Deepa, thereby bypassing the legal restrictions against bigamy. - Fourth Petition:
The fourth petition was brought by Sushmita Ghosh, who was married to G.C. Ghosh. On April 20, 1992, G.C Ghosh informed Sushmita that he no longer wished to stay married and asked her to consent to a mutual divorce. When Sushmita refused, she was shocked to learn that her husband had converted to Islam to marry another woman, Vinita Gupta. G.C. Ghosh obtained a certificate of conversion from a Qazi on June 17, 1992, and announced his intention to marry Vinita. Sushmita, in her writ petition, requested the court to prevent her husband from solemnizing the second marriage.
Each petition underscores the misuse of religious conversion to circumvent the legal prohibition on bigamy, raising significant questions about personal laws and their implications.
Issues
The Court framed these issues to be discussed-
- Can a Hindu husband, married under Hindu law, marry a second time after converting to Islam?
- If the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, is the second marriage valid with respect to the first wife, who remains Hindu?
- Does the husband, after converting to Islam, commit an offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Arguments for the Petitioner
In the case involving Meena Mathur, it was argued that her husband converted to Islam solely to circumvent the prohibition on bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes having a second spouse during the subsistence of the first marriage. The petitioner contended that her husband’s religious conversion was not genuine but a deliberate tactic to contract a second marriage, thereby violating her rights under personal laws. The argument highlighted that such actions undermine the sanctity of existing marital obligations and the legal protections afforded by monogamy.
The petitioners further emphasized that such instances infringe upon the rights of spouses who do not consent to polygamy or conversion, forcing them into situations that conflict with their core beliefs. They argued that these actions exploit constitutional protections under Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of religion, to bypass the legal consequences of bigamy. This misuse of religion not only undermines the laws safeguarding monogamous marriages but also strips spouses of their rightful legal protections.
Arguments for the Respondent
In all the petitions mentioned, the respondents argue that upon converting to Islam, they are entitled to marry up to four wives, even if their first wife remains Hindu. Consequently, they claim exemption from the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which, under Section 11, renders bigamous marriages void.
Analysis of the Court
On dissolution of Marriage
The court held that a marriage solemnized under one personal law cannot be dissolved by invoking the provisions of another personal law adopted by one spouse upon conversion, while the other spouse continues to adhere to the original law. Allowing a party to dissolve the marriage by adopting a new personal law would effectively deprive the other spouse, who remains a Hindu, of the rights acquired through the marital bond. A marriage solemnized under Hindu law grants the parties specific legal status and rights. Consequently, even after one spouse converts to Islam, the marriage continues to be governed by Hindu law, as was the case before its codification in 1955. Such a marriage does not automatically dissolve upon conversion.
Under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, a marriage can only be dissolved based on the grounds enumerated in Section 13 of the Act. Section 13(1)(ii) specifically allows dissolution if "the other party has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion." Thus, a second marriage by an apostate, while their first spouse remains Hindu and the marriage remains undissolved under the Act, is unlawful.
Validity of second marriage
From a legal standpoint, a second marriage in such circumstances is invalid. It violates principles of natural justice by allowing the apostate spouse to remarry. Granting such permission after conversion to Islam is arbitrary and serves as a deliberate evasion of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes bigamy.
On Uniform Civil Code
Further, to address matters related to marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, child custody, and other matrimonial disputes under a single, unified legal framework applicable to all religious communities, the Supreme Court of India strongly advocates for the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code. This Code seeks to establish uniform and consistent legal standards for governing the personal laws of all religious groups in India.
It is to be noted that Article 44 of the Constitution of India says that “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. The Hon’ble Court reiterated the need to make this DPSP enforceable and directed the government accordingly.
