Sarla Mudgal v. UOI

Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1531

Decided on: 10 May 1995

Presiding Judge (s): (J)Kuldip singh, (J)R.M. Sahai

Court : Supreme Court of India

Facts of the case: Bigamy is a punishable offence in India under IPC with the exception of those who follow certain customs, practices and personal laws. The petition was filed under by the petitioner Sarla Mudgal, the president of a non-profit called Kalyani working for the welfare of needy families and distressed women. Through 4 petitions filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32, a series of cases brought forth where husbands of married women converted to Islam religion with the sole intention  of marrying a second time.

Issue:

• Whether a Hindu husband, married under Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can solemnise a second marriage?
• Whether such a marriage without having the first marriage dissolved under law, would be a valid marriage qua the first wife who continues to be Hindu?
• Whether the apostate husband would be guilty of the offence under Section 494 of the IPC?

Judgment:

The Court discussed in detail the various issues raised and held that certain rights and status are acquired by both the parties of a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.  It was observed that if one of the parties is allowed to dissolve the marriage by adopting and enforcing a new personal law, it would destroy the existing rights of the spouse who continues to be Hindu. Therefore, a marriage under the act cannot be dissolved in any manner other than what has been prescribed under the Act. This also means that second marriage of an apostate before dissolving the first one would be void and illegal.

The Court observed that though conversion to Islam and marrying again would not, by itself, dissolve the previous Hindu marriage under the Act, but it can be construed as a sufficient ground for divorce.

As for whether the apostate husband would be held guilty under Section 494, it was held  that the ingredients of  Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is very clear that the second marriage would be void and would amount to an offence under the Code.

The Court also gave special emphasis to the Concept of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in this case. Article 44 of the constitution states that it is the duty of the state to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India. The idea is to ensure that the citizens of the country are bound by a common set of rules  so that instances such as in this case would not be repeated. The Supreme Court held that adopting Islam for a second marriage is an abuse of Personal laws and that it could be avoided by framing a UCC. The Court took a step forward in this matter by directing the parliament to file an affidavit regarding the steps taken by the Government of India towards securing a UCC for the citizens of India.

This was a historic judgment as it highlighted the need for uniform Civil code in our country.