Supreme Court Declares Second Marriage by Hindu Husband After Conversion to Islam as Void Under IPC Section 494

Apostate Husband Guilty of Bigamy; Court Urges Government to Implement Uniform Civil Code as Mandated by Constitution

In a landmark judgment delivered on May 10, 1995, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India unequivocally held that a Hindu husband who converts to Islam and solemnizes a second marriage without legally dissolving his first Hindu marriage commits an offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and that such second marriage is void and invalid in law. The court emphasized that the conversion to Islam does not automatically dissolve the existing Hindu marriage, and hence, the first marriage subsists until dissolved according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The case arose from multiple writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, involving petitioners who discovered that their Hindu husbands had embraced Islam and contracted second marriages without legally ending the first marriage. The Court examined the legal interplay between the Hindu Marriage Act, the Indian Penal Code, and personal laws governing marriage and conversion.

Justice Kuldip Singh, delivering the majority opinion, meticulously analyzed historical precedents and personal laws, reaffirming the principle that a marriage solemnized under one personal law cannot be unilaterally dissolved by one spouse’s conversion to another religion. The Court referred to several earlier judgments, including the Madras High Court's decision in Andal Vaidyanathan v. Abdul Allam Vaidya and Bombay High Court's ruling in Robasa Khanum v. Khodadad Bomanji Irani, to underscore that conversion does not ipso facto dissolve marriage.

The judgment clarified that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 strictly enforces monogamy and provides specific grounds under Section 13 for divorce, including conversion of a spouse to another religion. Until such dissolution, the marriage remains valid, and any subsequent marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void and amounts to bigamy under Section 494 IPC, punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and a fine.

Importantly, the Court also addressed the broader constitutional question of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) enshrined in Article 44 of the Constitution, lamenting the government’s failure to implement this directive since 1949. Justice Kuldip Singh urged the Government of India, through the Prime Minister and Ministry of Law and Justice, to actively pursue the enactment of a uniform civil code to ensure national integration and protect the rights of women.

Justice R.M. Sahai, concurring with the majority, highlighted the social necessity and urgency of reforms in personal laws to prevent misuse of religious conversion for circumventing monogamy and to protect women from oppression. He suggested that the government consider enacting a Conversion of Religion Act to regulate marriages after religious conversions, and recommended consultations with the Law Commission and Minority Commissions to draft comprehensive legislation in line with modern human rights principles.

The Supreme Court’s decision sends a strong message that personal laws cannot be manipulated to bypass legal obligations in marriage, and that the sanctity of marriage must be preserved irrespective of religious conversions. The judgment holds that the second marriage contracted by a Hindu husband after conversion to Islam, without dissolution of the first marriage, is not only void but also criminally punishable.

This ruling is a significant step towards harmonizing personal laws and reinforcing the constitutional mandate for a uniform civil code, reinforcing the principle that marriage is a civil contract governed by law and not merely by religious rites or conversions.

Statutory provisions: Indian Penal Code Section 494, Hindu Marriage Act Sections 4, 5, 11, 13(1)(ii), 15, Constitution of India Article 44

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 42145