Sarla Mudgal V. Union Of India 4l204w

CIA – 2 Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & ors. v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 635



FACTS OF THE CASE: The present case has 4 petitioners. It is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Petitioner 1 is the President of “KALYANI” - a ed society – which is an organization working for the welfare of needy-families and women in distress. Petitioner 2, Meena Mathur was married to Jitender Mathur in 1978. In 1988 learn that her husband had solemnized second marriage with one Sunita Narula alias Fatima. The marriage was solemnised after they converted themselves to Islam and adopted Muslim religion. According to the petitioner, conversion of her husband to Islam was only for the purpose of marrying Sunita and circumventing the provisions of Section 494, IPC



Sunita alias Fatima is another petitioner of 1990. She contends that she along with Jitender Mathur, who was earlier married to Meena Mathur, embraced Islam and thereafter got married. A son was born to her. She further states that after marrying her, Jitender Prasad, under the influence of his first Hindu-wife, gave an undertaking on April 28, 1988 that he had reverted back to Hinduism and had agreed to maintain his first wife and three children



Geeta Rani was married to Pradeep Kumar in 1988. In 1991, the petitioner learnt that Pradeep Kumar ran away with one Deepa and after conversion

to Islam married her. It is stated that conversion to Islam was only for the purpose of facilitating the second marriage. 

Sushmita Ghosh was married to G.C. Ghosh in 1984. In 1992 the husband finally told the petitioner that he had embraced Islam and would soon marry one Vinita Gupta.

JUDGEMENT: The Supreme Court held that the second marriage of a Hinduhusband after conversion to Islam, without having his first marriage dissolved under law, would be invalid. The second marriage would be void in of the provisions of Section 494 IPC and the apostate-husband would be guilty of the offence under Section 494 IPC. JURAL CORRELATIVES: Under this case, the main issue is whether a person belonging to Hinduism should be allowed to convert to Islam, while he is still married, for sole purpose of facilitating the second marriage.  According to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, any person has the Right to Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. So Article 25 provides a person the liberty to follow/profess any religion as he may please.  But according to Hindu law, a spouse cannot remarry unless the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. So by this provision a spouse is disabled from remarrying anyone else under Hindu law, as long as the first marriage hasn’t been dissolved.  Also according to section 494 of the Indian Penal Code marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife, unless the marriage has been declared void by a competent court, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. This not only disables the spouse but also holds him/her

liable in case he/she remarries and provides the State with the power to punish a person indulging in bigamy and the aggrieved the right to seek justice.  And, finally, by the judgement given in this case, a person has no liberty/right to convert to any religion when he is still married for the sole purpose of facilitating the second marriage.