INTRODUCTION
The Hindu personal law dictates monogamy, and the Muslim law allows for up to four wives in India. Therefore, the Hindu husbands began embracing Islam to avoid the provisions of Hindu law and avoid penal consequences. This had become a widespread practice among Hindu husbands, and thus the case of Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India (a landmark judgement) held that the practice of conversion to another religion in order to secure a second marriage as a violation of the fundamental principles of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience. The judgement prohibited the practice of converting to Islam in order to form a valid second marriage when the first Hindu marriage is still in force. It ruled that such marriages violate Section 494 of the IndianPenal Code (IPC). The case is also significant because it discusses the urgent need to implement a Uniform Civil Code in the country in order to give meaning to Article 44 of the Constitution and thus implement the mandate of the Constitution’s framers.
CASE BACKGROUND: SARLA MUDGAL AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1995 SC 153
The case consists of four writ petitions filed under Article 32 of India’s constitution. Sarla Mudgal, the first petitioner, works to help needy and distressed women. The second petitioner's husband converted to Islam and married the third petitioner. While the third petitioner remains a converted Muslim with no maintenance or protection under either of the personal laws, she claims that the second petitioner exerted undue influence on her husband, compelling him to convert back to Hinduism and care for the second petitioner and their children. Contrarily, the fourth petitioner's husband has fled, converted to Islam, and married another woman.
As a result, the petitioners filed the petition with the common contention that the respondents converted to Islam in order to avoid the provisions of Section 494 of the IPC and facilitate their second marriages with other women.
JUDGEMENT
The Division bench, comprised of Justices Kuldeep Singh and R.M. Sahai, ruled that a Hindu marriage solemnised under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act) can be dissolved only on one of the grounds specified in the Act. Neither spouse may contract a second marriage until the first marriage is dissolved in accordance with the Act. The Court ruled that converting to Islam and marrying again does not automatically dissolve the Hindu marriage. As a result, a convert’s second marriage would be illegal under the Hindu Marriage Act and would be null and void under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
When a marriage is solemnised under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, both spouses acquire certain rights and status. If one of them is allowed to dissolve the marriage by adopting a new personal law, the existing rights of the spouse who remains Hindu are undermined. As a result, this practice must be prohibited. The court cited the decision in Robasa Khanum vs. Khodadad Irani, AIR 1947 Bom. 272, and determined that such a marriage violates justice, equity, and good conscience.
As a result, the court ruled that an apostate husband would be guilty under Section494 of the IPC. The ingredients of this section imply that the second marriage is void and the apostate husband is guilty under the IPC. It also advocated for the adoption of a uniform civil code in the Indian legal system to prevent Indians from infringing on one another’s personal law.
The court also ordered the government of India, through the secretary of the ministry of law and justice, to file an affidavit outlining the steps it has taken to secure a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for Indian citizens.
CONCLUSION
The aforementioned case, also known as the Sarla Mudgal Case, is a watershed moment in Indian family and matrimonial law. It provided a new dimension to the expression ‘void’ under Section 494 of the IPC, providing a constructive approach to the concept of apostasy and bigamy. The interpretation of Section 494 of the IPC was made in the interest of justice. There must be harmony between the two legal systems, just as there must be harmony between the two communities. As a result, the Hindu Law on the one hand and the Muslim Law on the other would operate within their respective ambits without infringing on each other's personal laws. As a result, there has never been a general matrimonial law in India. Furthermore, until UCC is enacted for all citizens of the country, there will always be a loophole in the system because different faiths have different beliefs, and naturally, there will always be a conflict due to different beliefs and practices of communities.
Witten By,
Kalpana Nailwal,
Intern, Chanchlani Law World
Comentários