Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India, 1995

The petitioners, including Sarla Mudgal, were women whose husbands had converted to Islam and subsequently married other women without dissolving their first marriages, which were solemnized under Hindu law. ​

The petitioners contended that their husbands' conversions were solely to facilitate second marriages, thereby circumventing the provisions against bigamy under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 

Four petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution:

• Petitioner 1  is the President of an organisation 'KALYANI' (works for the welfare of families in need and women). There is a second petitioner Meena Mathur who married Jitender Mathur on 27 February 1978. They have 2 sons and a daughter together. In early 1988, the petitioner learned that her husband had solemnised a second marriage with Sunita Narula alias Fathima by converting to Islam.
• Petitioner 2 is Sunita Narula alias Fatima. She had converted to Islam to marry Jitender Mathur and a child had been born out of wedlock. Under the influence of his first wife, Jitender converted back to Hinduism. Sunita continued to be a Muslim, therefore she was not being maintained by her husband and had no protection under either of the personal laws.
• Petitioner 3 is Geeta Rani. She had married Pradeep Kumar as per Hindu rites on November 13, 1988. In December 1991, the petitioner learnt that Pradeep Kumar ran away to marry Deepa after converting to Islam. During the marriage, her husband used to maltreat her and on one occasion had broken her jaw.
•  
• Petitioner 4 is Sushmita Gosh. She had married G.C. Ghosh as per Hindu rites on May 10, 1984. On April 20, 1992, her husband asked her for a divorce by mutual consent. He revealed that he had converted to Islam and would marry a lady named Vinita Gupta.

1. Whether the Petition of the Petitioner is Maintainable under Article 32 of Indian Constitution?
2. Whether It is possible for a Hindu Husband who was married under Hindu Law to formally enter into a Second Marriage by accepting Islam?
3. Whether a Second Marriage, without having the First Marriage dissolved under law would, be considered valid when The First Wife continues as a Hindu.

ARGUMENT :-

All the petitioners collectively contended that the respondents converted themselves to Islam to bypass the provisions of bigamy provided in Section 494 IPC and solemnize their second marriage with other women. 

All the respondents contended that once they convert to Islam, they can have up to four wives despite having a first wife who continues to be a Hindu. They are not subjected to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and IPC. 

JUDGMENT :-

The judgment of this case was delivered by the Hon’ble Justice Kuldeep Singh while the Hon’ble Justice R.M. Sahai delivered a concurring judgment.

The Hon’ble Supreme in this case  referred to the doctrine of indissolubility of the marriage. The Court stated that the conversion to another religion by one or both the Hindu spouses did not dissolve the first marriage. The Court held that the marriage celebrated under a particular statute and according to one personal law cannot be dissolved according to another personal law, simply because one of the parties changed his or her religion.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that a Hindu husband married under Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can’t solemnize second marriage. Parties who have solemnized the marriage under the Act remain married even when the husband embraces Islam in pursuit of another wife. A second marriage by an apostate under the shelter of conversion to Islam would nevertheless be a marriage in violation of the provisions of the Act by which he would be continuing to be governed so far as his first marriage under the Act is concerned despite his conversion to Islam. The second marriage of an apostate would, therefore, be illegal marriage qua his wife who married him under the Act and continues to be a Hindu.

The Court also held that if one of the parties is permitted to dissolve the marriage by adopting & enforcing a new personal law, it would destroy the existing rights of the spouse who continues to be a Hindu. Thus, a marriage performed under the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be dissolved except on the grounds specified in Section 13 of the said act and any second marriage breaching this provision will be illegal & violative of justice, equity, and good conscience.

There is also a need for harmonious working between the two law systems. The court further held that the apostate husband would be guilty under Section 494 of IPC. The term ‘void’ under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Indian Penal Code serves different purposes. The court also ruled that the necessity of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) will stop Indians from trespassing the personal law of one another. So, UCC must be secured. 

The Supreme Court held that:​

• Validity of Second Marriage: A Hindu husband, married under Hindu law, who converts to Islam and marries again without dissolving his first marriage under law, commits the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC. The first marriage remains valid, and the second marriage is void. ​
• Applicability of Section 494 IPC: The Court observed that all the necessary ingredients for conviction under Section 494 IPC are present in such cases: the husband has a living wife and marries again without dissolving the first marriage, rendering the second marriage void. ​
• Uniform Civil Code: The Court emphasized the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to address conflicts arising from personal laws and to promote national integration. It highlighted that a common civil code would help in removing disparities and promote equality and justice. ​

This landmark judgment addressed the misuse of religious conversion to circumvent personal laws, particularly concerning marriage and bigamy. The Court's ruling reinforced the principle that individuals cannot escape legal obligations and prohibitions of their original personal laws by converting to another religion.​

Furthermore, the judgment brought to light the complexities and conflicts arising from India's diverse personal laws and underscored the importance of implementing a Uniform Civil Code to ensure equality and justice across all communities.