Family Law

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India

AIR 1995 SC 1531; (1995) 3 SCC 635

Facts

Several petitions raised a common problem involving Hindu husbands who had converted to Islam while their first Hindu marriages remained legally subsisting.
After conversion, they contracted second marriages without obtaining divorce from their first wives.
The husbands claimed that Muslim personal law permitted a Muslim man to have more than one wife.
The first wives argued that conversion was being used as a device to escape the monogamy imposed by the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court considered the status of the first marriage, the validity of the second marriage and the applicability of Section 494 IPC.

Whether conversion of a Hindu husband to Islam automatically dissolves his existing Hindu marriage.
Whether a second marriage contracted after such conversion, without divorce from the first wife, is valid.
Whether the husband can be prosecuted for bigamy.

A marriage solemnised under the Hindu Marriage Act can be dissolved only by a decree under that Act or by another legally recognised mode.
Conversion by one spouse does not automatically dissolve the marriage.
Section 13(1)(ii) HMA gives the non-converting spouse a ground to seek divorce, but the marriage continues until a decree is passed.
Section 5(i) requires that neither party have a spouse living.
A marriage violating Section 5(i) is void under Section 11.
Conversion cannot be used to defeat the obligations created by the personal law governing the first marriage.
A void second marriage contracted during the subsistence of the first may attract Section 494 IPC.

The Court held that the first marriage remained governed by the Hindu Marriage Act because it was validly solemnised under that statute.
The husband’s later change of religion could not unilaterally erase the wife’s existing marital rights.
Conversion might alter the convert’s religious identity, but it did not itself terminate the civil status created by the first marriage.
The first wife could choose to seek divorce on the ground of conversion, but until she did so and obtained a decree, she remained the lawful wife.
The Court rejected the argument that Muslim law automatically validated the second marriage.
A convert could not combine the benefits of two personal laws:
retain the first Hindu marriage without divorce; and
rely on Muslim law to justify another marriage.
Such an approach would permit the husband to defeat Section 5(i) HMA through a unilateral act.
The Court treated this as incompatible with justice, equality and the statutory protection of the first wife.
The second marriage was therefore void because the first spouse was still living and the first marriage had not been dissolved.
The Court further held that the husband could be prosecuted under Section 494 IPC.
The judgment also discussed the desirability of a Uniform Civil Code, but the operative family-law principle concerned conversion, subsistence of the first marriage and bigamy.

Conversion to Islam does not automatically dissolve an existing Hindu marriage.
A second marriage contracted without first obtaining a divorce is void.
The converting husband remains subject to prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
Use this case for: conversion cannot be used as a device to escape Hindu monogamy and contract a second marriage.