This Case Commentary is written by Shivanii Singh, a Second-Year Law Student of South Calcutta Law College

Name- Sarla Mudgal v. Union Of India

Equivalent Citation- Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 S.C.C. 635 (India).

Date of Judgement- May 10, 1995.

Case Number-Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 1990.

Case Type-Civil Appeal

Petitioner-Sarla Mudgal

Respondent-Union of India, State of Haryana

Bench/Judge-Justice M. M. Punchhi, Justice K. T. Thomas, Justice S. Rajendra Babu

INTRODUCTION

The case of Sarla Mudgal v Union of India is one of the landmark rulings dealing with the complex issues of personal laws in India and emphasizing the need for a Uniform Civil Code in India. The Practice of changing one's religion to have a 2nd marriage without dissolving the first marriage was held to be invalid as it was against the principles of justice, equality, and morality. It was held that many men were allegedly changing their religion to Islam just to solemnize their second marriage as Islam permits polygamy, that is marrying up to four wives. However, the court held that conversion from one faith to another does not dissolve the marriage of an individual. If a person is found guilty, he will be charged under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for bigamy. This raises severe concerns about the personal laws in the country. Personal laws cannot be molded according to one's desires and misused. Justice Kuldeep Singh also proposed to the Government to investigate securing a Uniform Civil Code for all its citizens as stated in Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Four petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. These involved;

1. Petitioner 1 involved Sarla Mudgal who was the president of an NGO named Kalyani which works for the upliftment of women and helping distressed women.

2.. Petitioner 2, involved Meena Mathur was married to Jitender Mathur in 1978. She found out that her husband had married another woman, Sunita Narula alias Fatima. It was held that both Jitender Mathur and Sunita Narula had converted to Islam before solemnizing their marriage.

3. Petitioner 3 involved Sunita Narula alias Fatima. She alleged that Jitender Mathur after coming under the influence of his first wife had re-converted to Hinduism while she continued to follow Islam. He also refuses to maintain her and she has no protection under any personal laws.

4. The Fourth petitioner was Geeta Rani who also alleged that her husband. Pradeep Kumar converted to Islam after marrying another woman, Deepa.

5. The fifth petitioner was Sushmita Ghosh (P5) who was married to G.C. Ghosh. In 1992, her husband told her that he did not want to live with her and he also embraced Islam and got to married Vinita Gupta.

All the above-distressed women filed a case before The Supreme Court of India to grant them relief and provide justice to them.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether it is permissible for a Hindu man to marry another woman after converting to Islam?

2. Whether such a marriage would be a valid marriage without dissolving the first marriage under the law?

3. Whether the apostate husband would be liable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

A. PETITIONERS

The petitioners held that they have been deprived of justice and are in severe distress as their husbands have solemnized another marriage without dissolving the first marriage after converting their religions. It is violative of the rights of the other spouse who does not want to convert to another religion. They also held that they only converted to Islam to marry another woman. They should be held liable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

B, RESPONDENT

Respondents believe the provision of one personal law shall apply to all personal laws. In other words, the provisions of Muslim personal law must apply to Hindu personal law and other religious personal law. According to the respondent, both spouses being Muslim is one of the most important factors in Islamic law. If one of the spouses ceases to be a Muslim, then the marriage is considered invalid. I] if the spouse failed to convert her religious faith the apostate husband is eligible to marry another woman without dissolving his first marriage and shall not be liable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for bigamy.

JUDGEMENT

Marriage is one of the most important institutions without which no civilization can exist. The court coming to the first issue stated that conversion to another religion by one of the spouses does not solemnize the marriage. The Supreme Court of India stated that a Hindu man cannot convert to Islam and solemnize another marriage. It will be considered void. The second marriage, therefore is illegal. The court held that the Hindu marriage can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified in the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. Converting to Islam and marrying again would not itself dissolve the marriage. The second marriage by a convert would therefore violate the Act and as such void in terms of Section 494.

3. The Hon’ble Court while answering the third issue referred to the provision of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code 494. Marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife. — Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void because of it taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Finally, the court also emphasized the idea of a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens, to bring them under the rule of one law for all irrespective of religion.

CONCLUSION

Marriage is one of the most important institutions in a civilized society. India gives religious rights and freedom to all its citizens. There are personal laws governing each religion thus giving citizens freedom to practice their religions. However, some people were taking advantage of this freedom and giving their spouses mental torture, thereby denying them their rights. Bigamy is a serious offense in the constitution as it violates the fundamental rights of equality as enshrined in the constitution. Sarla Mudgal is one of many cases. There are thousands of cases like this where people are just using religion for their gains. It makes us think about the idea of the Uniform Civil Code where all people will be subjugated to one one law. Disparities in personal laws pave the way for cases like Sarla Mudgal. On one hand, bigamy is illegal in India. On the other hand, a Muslim man can marry up to four wives.

The inclusion of UCC in the system is a step towards secularism, and the legislature shall take steps to enact it in the Indian legal structure.

REFERENCES

· Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1531 (India)

· Legal Lore, Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India and Others, LEGAL LORE (Sept. 7, 2021), https://www.legallore.info/post/sarla-mudgal-v-union-of-india-and-others.

· Legal Service India, Case Analysis: Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA (Sept. 5, 2023), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9651-case-analysis-sarla-mudgal-v-s-union-of-india.html/.

· Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/508426/.

· Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, LAW BHOOMI (n.d.), https://lawbhoomi.com/sarla-mudgal-president-kalyani-v-union-of-india/.