Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 10 May 1995 · 2 judges · 1995 AIR 1531; 1995 SCC (3) 635
A Hindu husband who converts to Islam and marries again without dissolving his Hindu marriage contracts an invalid second marriage, which is void for the purposes of Section 494 IPC, and he is guilty of bigamy.
Facts
Four petitions under Article 32 raised the same question. In the first, the President of Kalyani, a registered society working for needy families and women in distress, joined a wife whose husband, married to her under Hindu law, had converted to Islam and married another woman, claiming he could now have four wives. In the other petitions, a woman who had married such a convert complained she had no protection under either personal law, and two Hindu wives complained that their husbands had converted to Islam to take a second wife. One of them sought to restrain the second marriage. The Court framed the question whether a Hindu husband could, by embracing Islam, solemnise a second marriage, and whether he would be guilty under Section 494 IPC.
Questions before the Court
- Can a Hindu husband, married under Hindu law, solemnise a second marriage by embracing Islam?
- Is such a second marriage, without the first being dissolved under law, valid as against the first wife who remains a Hindu?
- Is the apostate husband guilty of the offence under Section 494 IPC?
What the Court held
- Conversion of one spouse to another religion did not dissolve a Hindu marriage under the uncodified law, and the position is the same under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A marriage under the Act can be dissolved only on a ground in Section 13, and the spouses remain married even after the husband embraces Islam.
- The second marriage of a Hindu husband after conversion to Islam, without his first marriage being dissolved under law, is invalid. It violates the Act, which continues to govern him so far as his first marriage is concerned.
- 'Void' in Section 494 IPC is used in a wider sense: a marriage in violation of any provision of law is void for that section. All four ingredients of Section 494 are satisfied, and the apostate husband is guilty of the offence.
- A dispute between a convert to Islam and a non-Muslim spouse is not one where the parties are Muslims, so Muslim personal law is not the rule of decision. Such a second marriage is also void as contrary to justice, equity and good conscience and to natural justice.
- The Court requested the Government of India to take a fresh look at Article 44 and directed it to file an affidavit in August 1996 on the steps taken towards a uniform civil code.
Why it matters
The judgment holds that conversion to Islam does not allow a Hindu husband to escape the monogamy of the Hindu Marriage Act or liability for bigamy, giving 'void' in Section 494 IPC a wider meaning than in Section 11 of the Act. Both judgments call for a uniform civil code under Article 44, and the Court asked the Government to report on steps taken.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Answering the questions posed by us in the beginning of the judgment, we hold that the second marriage of a Hindu-husband after conversion to Islam, without having his first marriage dissolved under law, would be invalid. The second marriage would be void in terms of the provisions of Section 494 IPC and the apostate-husband would be guilty of the offence under Section 494 IPC.”
“A Hindu marriage solemnised under the Act can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified under the Act. Till the time a Hindu marriage is dissolved under the Act none of the spouses can contract second marriage. Conversion to Islam and marrying again would not, by itself, dissolve the Hindu marriage under the Act. The second marriage by a convert would therefore be in violation of the Act and as such void in terms of Section 494, IPC. Any act which is in violation of mandatory provisions of law is per-se void.”
“The expression "void" under section 494, IPC has been used in the wider sense. A marriage which is in violation of any provisions of law would be void in terms of the expression used under Section 494, IPC.”
“Article 44 is based on the concept that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilised society. Article 25 guarantees religious freedom whereas Article 44 seeks to divest religion from social relations and personal law. Marriage, succession and like matters of a secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25, 26 and 27.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1079 of 1989, with W.P. (C) Nos. 347 of 1990, 509 of 1992 and 424 of 1992
- Decided
- 10 May 1995
- Bench
- Kuldip Singh (J), Sahai, R.M. (J)
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Kuldip Singh, J. wrote the main judgment; R.M. Sahai, J. wrote a separate concurring judgment. The order allowed the writ petitions in terms of the answers given in Kuldip Singh, J.'s opinion.
Questions on this case
7 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1 · Hindu Law Practice Set 1
In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), a Hindu husband converted to Islam and married again without his first marriage being dissolved. The Supreme Court held that the second marriage:
- A. was valid, but gave the first wife a right of maintenance
- B. was void, and the husband could be prosecuted for bigamy
- C. was valid, as his new personal law permitted it to him
- D. was voidable only at the instance of the first wife
Show the answer
B. was void, and the husband could be prosecuted for bigamy
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) held that a Hindu marriage subsists until dissolved under the HMA, so the husband's second marriage after conversion was void and he was liable for bigamy under Section 494 IPC (now Section 82(1) BNS). Conversion is only a ground on which the first wife may seek divorce under Section 13(1)(ii).