Sarla Mudgal Case: Is Bigamy an Offence?

Imagine when kings used to marry to spread their kingdoms all over the country or had a backup queen in case one was infertile. This practice took an all-new face in modern India when men, to solemnise a second marriage without dissolving their first, get their religion converted into Islam, which is known as bigamy.

So, Bigamy is a practice through which one person enters into another marriage while still being legally married to the first person. One of the most renowned examples of this practice in modern India can be of the film star Dharmendra who converted his religion to Islam to get married to Hemamalini. 

Introduction to bigamy

Usually, Islam is preferred for the purpose of practising bigamy, as it allows a Muslim man to have four wives. But very few know that it is permissible only in some exceptional cases. Bigamy in its entirety is a punishable offence under Section 494 IPC. This article discusses the Sarla Mudgal case (Sarla Mudgal & Ors. v UOI, 1995), which dealt with the conflict between personal laws and freedom of religion.

To know the difference between bigamy and polygamy, refer to this article.

Facts of Sarla Mudgal case

• Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, several petitions were filed in the SC. In this case, Sarla Mudgal was the President of an NGO named Kalyani that worked for distressed women.

• Meanwhile, Meena Mathur, wife of Jitender Mathur, found that her husband, Jitender Mathur, married another woman named Sunita Narula, aka Fathima, and to solemnise such marriage, they converted themselves to Islam & adopted the Muslim religion to which Fathima gave arguments. So, this case relates to section 494 of the IPC.

• Also, another petition was filed wherein Sunita Narula accused Jitender Mathur that he was influenced by his Hindu wife Meena Mathur and her children, so he again converted back to Hinduism. 

• Jitender Mathur agreed to maintain his first Hindu wife & children born out of his first wedlock & refused to maintain his second wife, who was still a Muslim and had no protection under any personal laws, either Hindu or Muslim.

• Again, in another petition, the petitioner Geeta Rani married a respondent Pradeep Kumar as per Hindu tradition in 1988. The petitioner stated that her husband assaulted her & he eloped with another woman named Deepa, marrying her & adopting Islam. This petition also stated that the conversion to Islam is to bypass the provision of section 494 of IPC.

Issues before the court

• Does a Hindu husband who is married under Hindu law adopt Islam for solemnising second marriage?

• Whether a second marriage, without having the first marriage dissolved under law would, be considered valid when the first wife continues as a Hindu?

• Would the defector's husband be held guilty of the offence under Section 494 of IPC?

Provisions discussed in this case

1. Section 494 of IPC – As per this provision under IPC, whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void because of its 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. It’s a non-cognizable bailable offence.

2. Article 44 of the Indian Constitution provided a uniform civil code for Indian citizens. The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.

Arguments of the parties in Sarla Mudgal case

Arguments on behalf of petitioners

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

Arguments on behalf of respondents

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 of Sarla Mudgal case

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. 

Dissenting opinion 

Justice R.M. Sahai showed dissent but only with regards to the question on UCC & not as to the second marriage after converting to Islam being void and punishable under IPC. Hon’ble Justice R.M. Sahai stated that:

1. Implementing UCC would result in more bad than good, causing dissatisfaction and disintegration among different religions.

2. Uniform personal law can only be laid down when there is harmony between the people of all religions. 

3. Government must establish a committee to enact the ‘Conversion of Religion Act’ to check the abuse of religion by any religion. The act will be binding on all the citizens irrespective of their religion and will prohibit the conversion of religion to marry. 

Impacts of Sarla Mudgal case

The impact of the Sarla Mudgal case was seen in the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) wherein Sarla Mudgal’s judgment was reviewed on the ground that it violates the fundamental right to life and liberty and freedom to practice any religion mentioned under Articles 20, 21, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.

The court, in this case, held that the petitioner’s argument amounts to the violation of freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Article 25 of the Constitution is a freedom that does not encroach upon similar freedom of other persons. Also, Islam is a progressive & respected religion that cannot be given a narrow concept as has been allegedly done by the petitioners. 

Conclusion

In a country like India, which is home to several religions, cultures, castes & traditions, religion has always been a very sensitive topic. So, the topic gets very heated when it comes to conversion from one religion to another, especially Islam.

FAQs

1. In which year did the Sarla Mudgal case take place? 

a. 1995 

b. 2005 

c. 2015 

d. 2025

2. Who filed the petition in the Sarla Mudgal case? 

a. Sarla Mudgal 

b. Ram Jethmalani 

c. Arundhati Roy 

d. Prashant Bhushan

3. The Sarla Mudgal case dealt with the issue of:

a. Bigamy 

b. Dowry 

c. Child marriage 

d. Domestic violence

4. The Sarla Mudgal case raised questions about the conflict between personal religious laws and

a. Freedom of speech 

b. Right to education 

c. Gender equality 

d. Right to privacy

5. The Supreme Court of India held that a Hindu husband, after converting to Islam, cannot marry again without: 

a. Seeking permission from the community elders 

b. Obtaining a religious divorce 

c. Registering the marriage with the government 

d. Legally dissolving his first marriage.

6. The Sarla Mudgal case highlighted the importance of which constitutional principle? 

a. Secularism 

b. Socialism 

c. Sovereignty 

d. Fraternity

Answers: 

1. A

2. A

3. A

4. C

5. D

6. A