Sarla Mudgal vs.
Union of India (1995), Supreme Court
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
1. Does a Hindu husband who is married under Hindu law adopt Islam for solemnising
second marriage?
2. Whether a second marriage, without having the first marriage dissolved under law
would, be considered valid when the first wife continues as a Hindu?
3. Would the defector's husband be held guilty of the offence under Section 494 of IPC?
Provisions discussed in this case
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.
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:-
• Implementing UCC would result in more bad than good, causing dissatisfaction and
disintegration among different religions.
• Uniform personal law can only be laid down when there is harmony between the people
of all religions.
• The 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.
