TITLE-The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code through-out the territory of India” is an unequivocal mandate under Article 44 of the Constitution of India which seeks to introduce a uniform personal law.this case is the most highlighted judgment on uniform civil code.

Case name -Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, … vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1995

Citations: 1995 AIR 1531, 1995 SCC (3) 635

Court-Suprme court of India

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Sahai Mr. D.N. Diwedi, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. V.C. Mahajan, Mr. Shankar Ghosh, Mr. R.K. Garg, Sr. Advs., Ms. S. Janani, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Mr. R.P. Srivastava, Ms. A. Subhashini, (Ms. Janki Ramachandran, Mr. K.J. John,) Advs. (N.P.), Mr. Shakeel Ahmed Syed, Advs.

PETITIONER:SMT. SARLA MUDGAL, PRESIDENT, KALYANI & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/05/1995

The fact of the case:

Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Sarla Mudgal is the president of an NGO named Kalyani which aims to help women in distress. Meena Mathur, who was married to Jitender Mathur in 1978 found that her husband Jitender Mathur married another woman named Sunita Narula alias Fathima. Petitioner also learned that both Jitender Mathur and Fathima were converted to Islam before solemnizing their marriage. Fathima contended that the purpose of converting themselves to Islam and adopting the Muslim religion is to marry each other and circumvent the provision of section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In another petition, Sunita Narula accused Jitender Mathur, who was influenced by his Hindu wife Meena Mathur and her children. After marrying Sunita Narula, Jitender Mathur converted okk back to Hinduism. Jitender Mathur agreed to maintain his first Hindu wife and children born out of his first marriage. As a result, Jitender Mathur refuses to maintain his second wife who continues to be Muslim and has no protection under either of the personal law.

In another petition, petitioner Geeta Rani married respondent Pradeep Kumar according to Hindu rites in 1988. The petitioner alleged that her husband assaulted her and in one of the assaults her husband broke her jawbone. Petitioner’s Husband elopes with another woman named Deepa and married her after adopting Islam. The Petitioner also stated that the objective of conversion to Islam is to bypass the provision of section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Arguments of the parties:

Petitioners:

Marriage between petitioner and respondent solemnized according to the particular personal law. Petitioners have contended that the second marriage of their spouses is a violation of rights guaranteed under personal laws. Respondents are solemnizing their marriages without dissolving their first marriage. It would be tantamount to the violation of the rights of one of the spouses who are reluctant to adopt another religion.

There are some cases where spouses are coerced to convert their religion. Such actions violate the fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed under article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The aggrieved parties knock on the door of the guardian of the constitution and ask to deliver justice to secure the rights of the aggrieved.

Respondents:

Respondents believe the provision of one particular 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 laws. Respondent contended that according to Muslim personal law if either of the spouses does not embrace the same religion that is Islam, a consequence has resulted in the dissolution of the marriage.

The respondent argues that If one of the spouses converts oneself from the Hindu religion to the Muslim faith, the other spouse is duty-bound to convert to Islam to sustain their marriage. 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.

The issue before the Supreme Court:

Religious conversion is the way out for people to tie the knot with another woman without dissolving their prior marriage according to the procedure established by law. Several issues were raised in the court regarding the immoral act of deserting one’s partner and taking undue advantage of the freedom of religion in a secular state.

There are primarily three issues that need to be addressed in the first place.

Can a Hindu man solemnize his second marriage by converting himself to Islam without dissolving his first marriage?

Is such a marriage a valid marriage without dissolving the first marriage under the law?

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

Judgement

The Supreme Court of India is also known as the guardian of the Indian Constitution. Since India’s Independence, the Supreme Court of India has never failed to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the constitution. The doctrine of dissolubility of marriage under traditional Hindu marriage law does not give any effect on the conversion of religion. The conversion of religion and marrying another woman will not result in the dissolution of the previous marriage solemnized under Hindu marriage law.

Marriage is the foundation of civilized society. Once the relationship of marriage is formed, it binds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. On one hand, monogamy is the law for Hindus. On the other hand, Muslim law permits four wives for a Muslim male in India according to the Shariat law of 1937. Hindu man embraces Islam to solemnize his second marriage without dissolving his first marriage and escape from the liabilities which were imposed upon him under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.