Author: Manvi Tokas,NorthCap University
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1079 of 1989
HON’BLE JUDGES: JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH AND RM SAHAI
PETITIONERS: SARLA MUDGAL, MEENA MATHUR, GEETA RANI, SUNITA NARULA AND SUSHMITA GHOSH
RESPONDENT-
JITENDER KUMAR, PRADEEP KUMAR AND GC GHOSH
LAWS INVOLVED-
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA(1950), HINDU MARRIAGE ACT(1955) AND INDIAN PENAL CODE (1860-2023)
DATE OF JUDGMENT-
10/5/1990
FACTS OF THE CASE-
In the case, there were four petitioners. Two of them in the writ petition 1079/89.
First petitioner was Sarla Mudgal who was the president of the NGO ‘KALYANI’ who would help women in distress.
Second petitioner was Meena Mathur, who was married to Jitender Mathur in 1978. Both had three children together. In 1988, Meena discovered that her husband had converted to Islam and had solemnized another marriage with Sunita, who had also converted her religion, with also changing her name to Fathima. Meena Mathur contended that the sole purpose of the conversion was to solemnize marriage with, thereby engaging in bigamy.
Furthermore, Sunita or Fathima petitioned under writ 347 of 1990, stating how she had after changing her religion and marrying Jitender Mathur and having a child together; after some years Jitender Mathur under the influence of her first wife had deserted her and their child and moved back with Meena Mathur, for which Jitender Mathur also gave an undertaking and made it clear that he will convert it back to Hinduism.
Geeta Rani in writ petition 424 of 1992, stated that she was married to Pradeep Kumar on 13 November 1988; after some years in 1991, Pradeep Kumar ran away with a girl named Deepa, converting his religion and marrying her.
Lar petitioner was Sushmita Ghosh in writ petition 509 of 1992. She was married to GC Ghosh on 10 May 1984. In 1992, the husband forced Sushmita to get into a divorce with her, for which she denied, therefore, Pradeep Kumar changed his religion and solemnized another marriage with a woman named Vinit Gupta.
CONTENTIONS-
All the petitioners pleaded before the court for justice due to the betrayal they had faced at the hands of their husbands. All three of the respondents had converted their religion to Islam for the sole purpose of solemnizing another marriage without ending their first marriages. The petitioner contended that their husbands second marriage is wrong and cannot be held valid and they must be charged under the offence of bigamy; while the respondents or the husbands contended that as they had converted their religion they had full rights to solemnize another marriage as per the new law.
LEGAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE-
Can a Hindu husband, married under Hindu law further adopting Islam, solemnize another marriage without ending the first marriage?
Whether such a marriage would be valid?
Whether the apostate husband be guilty under section 494 of IPC (now section 82 of BNS)
JUDGMENT
Ratio decidendi-
The judges in the given upheld the sanctity and value of a marriage; in the words of Justice Kuldip Singh stating how “marriage is the very ‘foundation’ of a civilized society; how in a marriage a when the relationship is once formed, the law steps in and binds the parties to each other, providing some liabilities to each other, which cannot be easily disregarded”. Also adding that “Marriage is an institution in the maintenance of which the public at large is deeply
interested. It is the foundation of the family and in turn of the society without which no civilization can exist”. Such profound thoughts of the honourable judge not only provided justice but also great insights in understanding the legal repercussions involved in a marital union.
The doctrine of indissolubility of marriage which is recognized under common hindu law, as stated by justice Kuldip Singh would not have effect upon conversion. “Conversion to another religion by one or both the Hindu spouses did not dissolve the marriage”. Such a second marriage is violative of “justice, equity and good conscience”. The justice in the case held that “when two people are married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 there are some personal laws existing for both the parties, which cannot be dissolved by converting one’s religion”. Such acts of marrying again through conversion will not automatically dissolve the first marriage.
In this instant case, the apostate husbands, that is , Jitender Mathur, GC Ghosh and Pradeep Kumar , have committed the offence of bigamy as they without dissolving their respective first marriages got into a second marriage. Whether that marriage was after conversion or not does not matter as conversion does not give power to a person to marry another without legally dissolving their first one as per Hindu laws.
Therefore, a marriage needs be dissolved as per section 13of Hindu Marriage act, 1955, before participating in another marriage. Before the dissolution a marriage is by all means legal and a simple conversion of religion does not alter that fact.
Obitor Dicta-
In the case it was ruled that no authority under Hindu law allows an apostate husband be free from all civil and matrimonial obligations. Some cases were relied by the judges such as, in Gul Mohammedan v. Emperor, in which a wife was forcibly taken away by the appellate marrying her after converting her to Islam. It was held that “conversion of a Hindu wife to Islam does noy ipso facto dissolve her first marriage”. In another case of Nandi/Zainab v. The Crown, Nandi was the wife and she after changing her religion to Islam married another man named Rukun Din, she was further charges with section 494 of IPC. Case of Emperor v. Mt. Ruri, the Christian wife converted to islam marrying another man was therefore charged and her second marriage was held to be void. In Ansal Vaidyanathan v. Abdul Allam Vaidya, the Madras court held that Special Marriage Act contemplates monogamy and a person cannot escape the marriage by a somple conversion.
Therefore, a marriage performed under one personal law cannot be said to dissolved by conversion to another personal law to which one or both the parties converts to. It can only be dissolved as per the Hindu laws.
OPINION OF JUSTICE KULPIP SINGH-
Justice Kuldip Singh in the judgment has great insights regarding the matrimonial relation itself saying- “Marriage is the very foundation of the civilized society. The relation once formed, the
law steps in and binds the parties to various obligations and liabilities thereunder. Marriage is an institution in the maintenance of which the public at large is deeply interested. It is the foundation of the family and in turn of the society without which no civilization can exist”. He puts forwards the concept of indissolubility of marriage, stating how a marriage is not automatically dissolved by a simple conversion by one or both the spouses. A conversion would not automatically dissolve the husband or the wife from the legal marital obligations. For a marriage to be actually dissolved the conditions as per section 13of the hindu marriage act needs to be fulfilled and conversion to another personal law would not mean dissolved. Without legal dissolvement, the marriage is valid and legal and the second marriage in such a case would be null and void. He also presented the ardent need for Uniform Civil Code to protect the rights of every citizen, he added how the government has repeatedly failed to make efforts towards “unified personal laws for all citizens”. He claims how “in the need to codify Hindu personal laws the progressive effort was ignored by the law makers. He mentions how “there is no justification whatsoever in delaying indefinitely the introduction of a uniform personal law in the country”.
DISSENTING OPINION-
JUSTICE RM SAHAI had some dissenting opinions on matters of implementation of UCC. He claimed that implementation of UCC could cause more dissatisfaction among the people of different religion in the country; stating that while the constitution of India does grant freedom of different religion a law like UCC would be arbitrary, therefore he proposes how “religion is a matter of faith and that logic does not apply to it. Marriage, divorce, conversion all are as much religious in nature as any other belief”.
Justice does point out that how religion is merely used to practice bigamy and he proposes a need for a committee to enact conversion of Religion Act, which would check the the abuse of religion by any person.
SUMMARY-
The case Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, is a landmark case covering the aspect of bigamy.
All three of the respondent in this case were responsible for the offence of bigamy, with the mere intention of conversion being an easy escape of matrimonial obligations to their previous wives. Such an act is completely outrageous as it not only harms the personal laws of the individual but also disrespects the religious organization at the same time. Religion is meant for one’s faith and belief, misuse of which for bigamous act is diabolical.
In the case, Jitender Mathur, exercised his freedom of religion as given by the constitution of India, but his subsequent act of solemnizing another marriage while the first one was not dissolved is an offence under Section 494 of IPC or Section 82 of BNS.
Other respondents as well that is GC Ghosh and Pradeep Kumar also do the same act of misusing religion for bigamous acts. Thus, a marriage performed under Hindu Marriage Act can only be dissolved by the conditions mentioned in Section 13 of the act, mere transformation of one’s religion does not make the previous marriage void or dissolved.
CONCLUSION
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India(1995), thus stands as a landmark case. The case protected the personal laws of individual in a matrimonial alliance, while also through its verdict showing, the authenticity of religion and its misuse being completely unacceptable. Through the case it can comprehended that taking religion or marriage for granted is outrageous and should be accepted, while personal laws should be protected.
FAQS
1.What is meant by Bigamy?
Bigamy is an offence wherein a spouse during the lifetime of another marries another, with the first marriage not being legally dissolved
2.What punishment has been given for bigamy?
Punishment of bigamy has been given under Section 82 of BNS, which is imprisonment for upto seven years and/or fine
3.What is meant by legal dissolvement of marriage?
Legal dissolvement of marriage refers to dissolving marriage by following the legal procedures as mentioned in the Hindu marriage act, 1955.
