2000 (5) TMI 1045 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the marriage entered into by him after conversion would be void? Held that - In the present case, we are not concerned with the status of the second wife or the children born out of that wedlock as in the instant case we are considering the effect of the second marriage qua the first subsisting marriage in spite of the husband having converted to Islam . I also agree with Brother Sethi, J. that any direction for the enforcement of Article 44 of the Constitution could not have been issued. I have already reproduced the order of this Court passed in Sarla Mudgal s case 1995 (5) TMI 260 - SUPREME COURT in which it was clearly set out that the learned Counsel appearing in that case had, after taking instructions, stated that the prayers were limited to a single relief, namely, a declaration that where a non-Muslim male gets converted to the Muslim faith without any real change of belief and merely with a view to avoid any earlier marriage or to enter into a second marriage, any marriage entered into by him after conversion would be void.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of polygamous marriages after conversion to Islam.
2. Discrimination against women under Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
3. Application of Hindu Marriage Act and Indian Penal Code in cases of conversion.
4. Role of personal laws and the need for a Uniform Civil Code.

Detailed Analysis:

Validity of Polygamous Marriages After Conversion to Islam:
The primary issue in this case was whether a Hindu man who converts to Islam solely to remarry can legally do so. The court examined the petitioner's claim that her husband converted to Islam not out of genuine faith but to circumvent Hindu laws prohibiting polygamy. The court held that such a conversion, if feigned, does not dissolve the first marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, mandates monogamy, and any second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void under Sections 11 and 17 of the Act. Thus, the second marriage would be void, and the person would be liable to prosecution under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for bigamy.

Discrimination Against Women Under Article 15(1) of the Constitution:
The petitioner argued that she was discriminated against based on religion and sex, violating Article 15(1) of the Constitution. She contended that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1937, enforced by state action, was unconstitutional. The court did not directly address this constitutional challenge but focused on the personal law applicable to the parties. It emphasized that conversion to another religion does not dissolve the existing marriage, and the rights and obligations under the Hindu Marriage Act continue to apply.

Application of Hindu Marriage Act and Indian Penal Code in Cases of Conversion:
The court reiterated that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for monogamy, and conversion to another religion does not dissolve a marriage solemnized under this Act. The court cited various precedents, including Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra and Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan, to support its view that a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void and constitutes an offence under Section 494 IPC. The court also noted that the personal law applicable at the time of the first marriage continues to govern the marital relationship despite conversion.

Role of Personal Laws and the Need for a Uniform Civil Code:
The court acknowledged the complexities arising from different personal laws and the need for a Uniform Civil Code, as envisaged under Article 44 of the Constitution. However, it clarified that the judgment in Sarla Mudgal's case did not issue any direction for the enactment of such a code. The court referred to the affidavits filed by the Government of India, indicating that the government would consider a Uniform Civil Code only if there was a consensus among the communities. The court emphasized that religion is a matter of faith and should not be exploited for personal gains, such as evading marital obligations.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that conversion to Islam for the sole purpose of remarrying does not dissolve the first marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. Such a second marriage is void, and the person is liable for prosecution under Section 494 IPC. The court also clarified that it did not direct the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code in Sarla Mudgal's case and that the government would take steps in this regard only if there was a consensus among the communities. The Review Petition and the Writ Petitions were disposed of with these clarifications.