Abstract
The present landmark judgment discusses the conflict between personal laws and the freedom of religion. The Supreme Court sees this case's verdict as a watershed moment. The act of switching one's religion to start a second marriage without dissolving the first was found void since it violated moral just and ethical standards. Even after converting to a new religion, a person's marriage remains intact. A marriage can only be dissolved by a divorce order granted by the proper court on one of the grounds stated in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court additionally declared that section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 will be utilized to prosecute the defendant for bigamy if he was proven guilty.
There is no one civil code that applies to all of India's citizens. Every citizen is subject to private law. Justice Kuldip Singh urged the Government to investigate Article 44 of the Indian Constitution and establish a standard code for all citizens.
In this Article, Shifta Amrin of HILSR, and Jamia Hamdard have discussed the most prominent landmark judgment related to Bigamy i.e Smt. Sarla Mudgal. President Vs Union of India in detail.
Introduction
Indian Culture is a unique blend of historical traditions and modern western culture but since India varies in culture from Place to place, religion to religion within the entire country; it is one of the rigid and oldest cultures that merely changes. In India. Modern-western culture is becoming a new norm, the root of a certain religion is still connected to the old traditional practices that safeguard the rights and laws of all individuals. One of those roots is Marriage in India. Marriage is a sacred practice. It is an institution that once formed binds the two parties into various obligations and liabilities. Here, this case is about those distressed women whose Hindu spouse converted to Islam to enter into second marriage even though the first marriage was subsisting. The reason behind this conversion is the allowance given by the Muslim Law to marry as many as four women whereas Bigamy is a crime under Hinduism and it is also considered to be void under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
However, local Indians considered attempts and demands of the local Indians to implement a Uniform Civil Code to be a threat to the rights to Personal law of Muslims residing in India.
Bigamy is the practice of getting married to someone while still having a valid marriage to another. The couple's status as married individuals is unaffected by formal or informal separation. A person who is in the process of divorcing their spouse is assumed to still be legally married until the divorce is declared absolute or final by the applicable jurisdiction's legislation.
Facts
In Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India, (1995) four petitions were submitted per Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which grants the right to constitutional remedies through Writ petitions in the Supreme Court, The first writ petition 1079/89 had two petitioners. The first one is Sarla Mudgal, the president and head of the officially recognized "KALYANI" society. The main goals of this organization were the welfare of struggling families and women. Meena Mathur, who was wed to Jitender Mathur and had three kids, was another petitioner. The petitioner learned of her husband's second marriage, which they celebrated after converting to Islam, with Sunita Narula alias Fathima in the early months of 1988. The petitioner claimed that her husband only became a Muslim to wed Sunita Narula and to shield himself from Section 494 of the IPC.
In the writ petition 347 of (1990), Sunita Narula alias Fathima was another petitioner. She claimed that after taking up Islam, she and Jitender Mathur, who was already officially married to Meena Mathur, got wedded. She gave birth to a son. She added that after they got married, Jitender Mathur pledged in April 1988 that he had converted to Hinduism once more and would support his wife and their offspring. She lamented her husband's lack of support.
Another plea was submitted in Writ Petition 424 of 1992 by Geeta Rani, who had wed Pradeep Kumar in 1988. She claimed her husband was violent and abusive. He used to mistreat her and beat her up, and one day he beat her so severely that her jaw was fractured. The petitioner discovered Pradeep Kumar had married Deepa in December 1991, following his conversion to Islam. According to the petition, the conversion was simply done to make it easier to get married again.
Sushmita Ghosh, the petitioner in Writ Petition 509 of 1992, wed G.C. Ghosh in 1984 following Hindu customs. Her husband didn't want to live with her, therefore he urged her to get a divorce by mutual consent in April 1992. To avoid divorce, the petitioner prayed that she would desire to live with him and be his lawfully wedded wife. Later on, her husband asserted that he had a certificate stating that he had converted to Islam and would soon wed Vinita Gupta. The certificate was dated June 17, 1992. Therefore, the petitioner sought that her spouse is prevented from getting married a second time.
Issues raised
1). Can a Hindu husband who was married under Hindu law and afterwards converted to Islam perform a second marriage?
2). Is marriage like that legal if the original wife, who is still a Hindu, hasn't had her prior marriage legally dissolved?
3). What would the husband's guilt under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code be?
Judgment
The judgment of this case was passed by Hon'ble Mr Justice Kuldip Singh Hon'ble Mr Justice R.M. Sahai on May 10th, 1995. According to the Supreme Court, only one of the grounds listed in the Hindu Marriage Act may be used to dissolve a Hindu marriage that was solemnized under that Act. No spouse may enter into a second marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved following the Act. The court ruled that changing one's religion to Islam and getting remarried do not, by themselves, end a Hindu marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act would therefore be broken by the second marriage through conversion.
All four requirements of Section 494, which apply when a Hindu spouse marries for a second time after converting to Islam, were met in the instance of Sarla Mudgal. He also got married once before and still has a wife. Since the aforementioned union took place while the first wife was still alive, it is null and void. As a result, the court determined that Section 494 of the IPC did not apply to the second marriage of a Hindu husband following his conversion to Islam. The court concluded that section 494 of the IPC would apply to a husband who had become an apostate.
Conclusion
This Landmark Judgement is one of those cases whose judgment discusses the scope of section 494 and introduces a highlight that how an individual conversion alone cannot dissolve the institution of marriage. Bigamy is only permitted in India when a man and woman are legally married. Even if live-in partnerships have recently been made lawful, India still does not view cohabiting with someone when a first marriage is still going strong as bigamy. The legislature must take action to incorporate UCC into the Indian legal system since it is a step toward secularism. Professor H.L.A. Hart's Analytical Legal Positivism theory distinguished between static societies and those that are not. The rule of change must be employed in conjunction with the foundational concepts for both societies to grow as a civilization. If the author is permitted to interpret the law in a modern meaning, it must adapt to societal change. Therefore, to satisfy the needs of modern Indian society, India's personal and bigamy laws must be updated.
The Present case is a significant judgment in the annals of family and matrimonial cases in India. It gave apostasy and bigamy a positive spin and introduced a new dimension to the meaning of "void" under Section 494 of the IPC. To uphold the interests of justice, Section 494 of the IPC was constructed in this manner. Just as there must be harmony between the two communities, the two legal systems must be compatible. Conflicts will inevitably arise due to diverse communities' beliefs and practices until a single civil code is implemented for the entire population of the country because different faiths have distinct ideas.
The most important consideration to be taken is the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and its mentioned provisions that provided the guidelines for the dissolution of marriage.
Commentaires